The Question of Unity 



Many Voices Concerning the Unification 
OF Christendom. 



Edited by 
AmOry H. Bradford, D.D. 



New York : 

The Christian Literature Co. 

1894. 



y 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 

Z ' 1 - 

l::. iopgrigljl :f a 

Shelf -..3_I.B(p 



UNITED STATES OF AfflEBICA. 



The Question of Unity 



Many Voices Concerning the Unification 
OF Christendom. 



Edited by 
Amory H.^'^radford, D. D. 









^r ^^ 



New York : 

The Christian Literature Co. 

1894. 



'APRS71894 . 



The l»¥fe^4^if 

OF CoN^fip^ 
WASHINGTON 



^^V^ 
^y^ 



Copyright 1894, By 

The Christian Literature Co. 



KlKTHSOrPPESS. 52Lt=AYE. 



PREFACE. 

The great interest in the Christian world con- 
cerning the Unification of Christendom justifies 
the republication in this form of a series of arti- 
cles -^vhich have already appeared in the pages of 
Christian Literature and The Review of the Churches. 
The occasion of their first publication was the 
appearance of a very remarkable monograph from 
the pen of the Rev. Charles W. Shields, D.D., 
professor in Princeton University. The title of 
Dr. Shields' paper was ''The Historic Episcopate; 
an Essay on the Four Articles of Church Unity 
Proposed by the American House of Bishops and 
the Lambeth Conference." 

It will be seen that some of the articles in this 
book discuss Dr. Shields' positions, and some of 
them the subject of Church Union in its larger 
relations. Simultaneously with the appearance 
of these articles there appeared in The Independent, 
of New York, a symposium in which most of the 
Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the 
United States took part. The special question 
proposed to them concerned the exchange of pul- 
pits with other denominations as one step toward 
Church Union. With the greatest unanimity they 
declared that such a course was impossible. Not 
all the Bishops responded, and we think it not 
unfair in this case to infer that failure to respond 
is evidence of disagreement with those whose opin- 
ions were made public. But however that may 
be, and while we fully believe that many of the 
ablest and most influential clergymen and laymen 



of that denomination would not agree with their 
Bishops, there can be no doubt but what their 
utterances have caused a wide-spread distrust of 
the feasibility of Church Union on the basis of the 
Chicago-Lambeth Articles. That distrust may be 
well founded or unfounded, but it exists. To be 
perfectly plain, we say that if the Unification of 
Christendom on the basis of the famous "Quadri- 
lateral " is desirable, the Bishops of the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church have made such union 
impossible for many more years than would have 
been required for its realization if they had not 
spoken at all, or had spoken differently. Many 
who had been half converted by the logic and 
"sweet reasonableness" of Dr. Shields have had 
his work all undone by what seems to them the 
assumption of ecclesiastical omniscience on the part 
of the Bishops. For ourselves, we do not believe 
that the Bishops speak for the whole Episcopal 
Church. We rather believe that a large, growing 
and influential minority, whose best representa- 
tive in recent years has been Bishop Brooks, are 
far more catholic and irenic than those who have 
spoken for their Church. 

But the cause which has thus been wounded in 
the house of its friends is not dead, and those who 
do not accept the Historic Episcopate are by no 
means to be considered as satisfied with a divided 
Christendom ; and they are not discouraged even 
though no definite plan looking toward union 
may at present commend itself to their judgment. 
The ways of Providence can seldom be predicted. 
The Divine life manifests itself according to its 
own laws. The old question of Paul to the Cor- 
inthians echoes incur ears — "Is Christ divided ?" 
In someway the divisions in our Lord's body will 



be healed, and they will be healed only by life. 
Much study of this subject has confirmed the 
opinion that while "propositions" and "plans" 
looking toward Church Uuion are desirable and 
do more or less good, it is good of a negative 
kind. They show where the goal we seek is 
not to be found. When all men have Christ; 
when they can truly say that they no more live 
but Christ lives in them, unity will come naturally 
and inevitably. Christ cannot be divided. Where 
division is, He is not; where He is, division is 
not. 

In the meantime this booklet is offered to the 
public in the hope that these " Many Voices " 
may help a Httle in turning the thought of the 
Church away from human mechanisms and direct- 
ing it toward Him in whom Christians are one. 
He is the fountain of spiritual life, and from Him 
alone can come the unity for which we hunger. 
Amory H. Bradford.' 
First Congregational Church, 
Montclair, N. J. 



MANY VOICES CONCERNING 
DR. SHIELDS' BOOK. 



"THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE." 



In this number of The Review of the Churches 
is presented to our readers what we think they 
will recognize as a very remarkable series of arti- 
cles. More than at any time in recent years, and 
perhaps than ever before, the question of the 
reunion, or unification of Christendom, is before 
the minds and on the hearts of Christian people. 
It is easy to understand why this subject has 
assumed such importance. Two at least of our 
religious bodies have made distinct overtures look- 
ing toward this end. The Bishops of the Ameri- 
can Episcopal Church and of the Anglican Church 
have united in putting forth the four propositions 
which are known as the Chicago-Lambeth Articles ; 
and the Church of the Disciples of Christ has 
issued its declaration as to what is essential to 
Christian unity. The latter may be condensed as 
follows: The union of Christendom on the basis 
of "The primitive Creed," namely, "Thou art 
the Christ, the Son of the living God;" "The 
Primitive Sacraments;" Baptism, and the Lord's 
Supper; and "The Primitive Life, " or the life 



2 The Historic Episcopate. 

that was in Christ. The Chicago-Lambeth Arti- 
cles are as follows: 

"I. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New 
Testaments, as 'containing all things necessary to 
salvation,' and as being the rule and ultimate 
standard of faith. 

"II. The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal 
Symbol, and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient 
standard of the Christian faith. 

'* III. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ 
himself: Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, 
ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of 
institution, and of the elements ordained by Him. 

"IV. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted 
in the methods of its administration to the vary- 
ing needs of the nations and peoples called of God 
into the Unity of His Church." 

It would be too much to presume that the publi- 
cation of these suggestions have created the inter- 
est which now exists in this subject, for the 
interest itself inspired the publication of the arti- 
cles. It is idle to try to conceal the fact that 
there is a widespread and deep-seated dissatis- 
faction with the present constitution of the Chris- 
tian Church and the mode of its administration. 
Those who assume the championship of the 
Church as an institution try to laugh this feeling 
down, or, still worse, to put it down by the use of 
hard names. Some men who are not Christians 
have denounced the Church, and it is straightway 
presumed that all who criticise are going into 
their company; but there is a vast difference 
between the denunciation of enemies and the 
criticism of friends — the one proceeds from enmity ; 
the other is the truest indication of loyalty. It is 
now several years since the Chicago-Lambeth 



Amory H. Bradford, D.D. 3 

Articles were given to the world, and they have 
steadily attracted increased attention. We do not 
propose at this time to discuss these articles. They 
are sufficiently referred to in the communications 
which follow. Suffice it to say that among the most 
notable papers on this subject in recent years is one 
by the Rev. Charles W. Shields, D.D., professor in 
Princeton University. Dr. Shields has already 
won a distinguished position because of his contri- 
butions to philosophical and theological literature. 
Anything which comes from his pen is sure to be 
received with attention and read with apprecia- 
tion. This paper, which he has delivered before 
many representative bodies, has been published 
by the Scribners, and is now in a form in which it 
may be read by all. Dr. Shields' main contention 
is that the reunion of Christendom is possible 
only on the basis of the Historic Episcopate, and 
yet he does not advocate a mechanical union, but 
clearly recognizes that the unity for which he 
pleads must be the result of long processes of 
growth. We leave Dr. Shields to speak for him- 
self to those who are wise enough to read his little 
book. We desire, however, to call attention to 
two or three facts in connection with this subject 
which seem to us of great importance. First: 
The fact that our churches are so largely rivals 
rather than friends and allies is a shame and dis- 
grace. It misrepresents our Christian life, and 
gives, in many communities at least, a totally 
false impression of what our Master teaches and 
is. Work which could be well done if all were 
united is neglected because of division. Second: 
The missionary boards of all our churches are 
issuing piteous appeals in behalf of their treas- 
uries, when if there v/ere co-operation instead of 



4 The Historic Episcopate. 

competition there would be money enough in the 
treasuries and men enough for all the pulpits. There 
is no need of more churches in the United States. 
Dr. Carroll, in his tables of statistics, has shown 
that there are churches enough for all the people. 
And yet because we are denominationlists rather 
than Christians we are wasting money, keeping our 
treasuries depleted, issuing appeals for contri- 
butions which really are not much needed. 
Third: The denominations have ceased to have 
any vital differences. If we select three or four, 
and ask for what they distinctly stand we find 
that they do not represent anything essential. 
For instance, the Congregationalists represent the 
independence of the local church, and the right 
of each man to form his own opinions, led by the 
Spirit of God. The Baptists especially emphasiz.e 
the importance of the "believers' baptism," the 
Presbyterians the Westminster doctrines, and the 
Episcopalians the Historic Episcopate. Now as a 
matter of fact not one of these has any vital rela- 
tion to the work of the salvation of men or is 
even understood by most converts. They do not 
need to be mentioned when we are leading men 
to Christ. Furthermore we all acknowledge by 
our example that they are of secondary importance. 
Churches often co-operate; ministers preach in 
each other's pulpits, and all work together 
enough to show that we do not hold as ,vital 
the things which distinguish us. The 
majority of our people practically say that they 
do not care very much for the fences which sepa- 
rate the sects. Our local churches are made up 
of members of almost all denominations. Most 
city and suburban pastors would testify that they 
receive members from various communions into 



Amory H. Bradford, D.D. 5 

their fellowship, and that often those who are the 
most efficient have come from other denominations 
than those in which they are working. These are 
singular and serious facts. They ought not to be 
evaded, and their significance cannot be exagger- 
ated The Christian people are in advance of their 
leaders. They are pushing on toward unity faster 
than those whom they are supposed to follow. 
Moreover, there is abroad an unwonted interest 
in the affairs of the Kingdom, and men are find- 
ing that they can work together for the kingdom 
of God when they are not able to agree upon any 
sect. Consequently there is growing up, so to 
speak, a church outside the church, which is doing 
the work of Christ and presenting the very essence 
of Christianity to those who are longing for pure 
and undefiled religion. This tendency is seen in 
the various charities, in the Young Men's Chris- 
tian Association, in the so-called ''labor churches," 
in the "Bible readings" in many of the lodges, 
and in different ways not commonly discovered. 

When we come to a discussion of the question 
of the remedy for our divided Christendom the 
difficulty begins. The most earnest Christians 
recognize the evils, but few are willing to make 
the sacrifices necessary in order that those evils 
may be remedied ; indeed, perhaps as yet we 
hardly know what sacrifices are best for us to 
make. For ourselves we are not satisfied with the 
Chicago-Lambeth Articles. We do not see how 
they are likely to produce anything more than a 
formal unity. The real difficulty is in our imper- 
fect appreciation of the teachings of Christ. We 
import our own personalities into the circle which 
belongs to Him alone. When He reigns supreme, 
and His principle of self-sacrifice for the good of 



6 The Historic Episcopate. 

the Kingdom prevails, there will be as much effort 
on the part of denominations to give up non- 
essentials for the general welfare as there must 
always be among individual Christians. When 
individuals are unloving, formal declarations of 
harmony are to little purpose. The divisions may 
be disguised, but they will be deep and vital. The 
unification of Christendom is not to be promoted 
by the advocacy of any form of polity. That is, 
beginning from the outside and working inward, 
whereas the process should be that which was 
always emphasized by our Master — making the 
heart right in order that the life may be. We are 
aware that these are commonplaces, and yet the 
more we study this question the m.ore fully are we 
convinced that expedients looking toward union 
are all likely to fail unless they begin with the 
recognition that denominational selfishness is as 
wicked as individual selfishness; that nothing is 
made good by being done in the name of the 
Lord, when the spirit tends to defeat that which 
He is trying to do. 

When His work is supreme everything else will 
be of comparatively little importance, and we shall 
not ask concerning Baptism or the Episcopate or 
Independency or special speculative doctrines, 
but only, how may His work be advanced? We 
are inclined to think that those writers who are 
lifting " the Kingdom " into greater prom-inence 
are working in the line most likely to help in the 
realization of the end which we so much covet. 
Work for churches is not always work for the 
Kingdom. That which promotes sectarianism 
inevitably tends to defeat the Kingdom. The 
Master spoke of the Church but twice; with Him 
the Kingdom was everything. We have too long 



Amory H. Bradford, D.D 



given the first place to that which He made of 
comparatively little importance. To be sure the 
Apostles more frequently referred to the Church, 
but never in a v/ay which indicates that the King- 
dom is to be interpreted by the Church. Christ's 
use of the words indicates that the Church is 
always to be interpreted by the Kingdom. The 
more we think of the Kingdom as the end, and 
the Church as only an instrument for its advance- 
ment, and that that instrument is best which best 
does the work for which it is designed, the more 
swiftly the Kingdom will be advanced and the 
union for which we pray be realized. 

Concerning the series of articles which follow, 
we m^ay be permitted to say that we had hoped to 
present a few other papers from representative 
men who were prevented at the last moment from 
furnishing them. Two or three of the following 
communications are very short, like those from 
Dr. Cuyler and Dr. George R. Crooks. Professor 
Crooks had hoped to furnish a longer article, but 
was prevented from doing so. This we regret 
the more because he is the only representative of 
the Methodist Church who responded to our 
appeal. The article by the Rev. William Hayes 
Ward, D.D., was especially prepared for this 
Review, but is with our consent published simul- 
taneously in The Independent^ of which he is the 
editor. 

As we read the articles which follow one fact 
especially impresses us, and that is, that the 
Chicago-Lambeth propositions are not understood 
by other denominations. We are not convinced 
that union is possible by means of them, but we 
gladly recognize that they are issued in the most 
catholic and fraternal spirit, and we can see 



8 The Historic Episcopate. 

clearly that the prominence which they give to 
the Historic Episcopate is not because it distin- 
guishes the Episcopal Church, but because in the 
opinion of the Bishops it belongs to the universal 
Church of Christ. They hold, and we believe 
consistently, that there is nothing in it antago- 
nistic to either Congregationalism or Presbyte- 
rianism. These propositions are worthy of a more 
careful consideration than they have yet received 
from the various denominations of Christians in 
Great Britain and America. If Professor Shields 
had done nothing else he would have performed a 
great service in behalf of the cause so dear to his 
heart by bringing into clear relief the exact mean- 
ing of the Chicago-Lambeth Articles. 

We cannot close this word of introduction with- 
out expressing our hearty appreciation of the 
general and gracious response to our invitation to 
so many representative men to furnish the readers 
of this Review with their opinions concerning this 
most important subject. Their replies show that 
our Lord's prayer concerning the oneness of all 
who accept Him is far from being answered, and yet 
that the day of its realization has surely dawned. 

A. H. Bradford. 



02?. (H. gunfingfon, ©.©. (€pi0copafian), 
(Hector of (grace C^u^c^, Qlei^;) ^orS. 

If Dr. Shields had done nothing more than coin 
his felicitous phrase, " The United Church of the 
United States," he would have put the whole 
country in his debt. A telling cry is more than 
half the battle, and commonly the cry tells Justin 
proportion to the distinctness with which it 
describes the object sought. To a far greater 
extent than is commonly supposed, the endurance 
of our national life hinges on our achievement of 
church unity. The American Commonwealth 
stands committed to the principle that a people 
can be trusted to govern itself. This is a 
profoundly Christian postulate, but what makes it 
such is the fact that behind it lies another, namely, 
the presupposition that the people in question has 
a hearty desire to know and a settled resolve to 
do what is right; or, in other words, that the 
national life is penetrated and informed by the 
Holy Spirit. History records no instance in 
which "popular institutions" that had not this 
religious backing have long survived. Our country 
started out on its course equipped with a Christian 
conscience. If it is to keep that conscience and 
continue on the lines of civic righteousness, it 
must have an effective administration of religion. 
All the ''problems" that beset us, the school 
problem, the slum problem, the hill-town problem, 
the foreign missionary problem, make this neces- 
sary. The question occurs. Is religion, as a 
matter of fact, effectively administered in any 



lo The Historic Episcopate. 

country when it exhibits the piebald aspect under 
which the Christianity of the United States stands 
revealed in the census of 1890? Are the strong 
minds of a young and adventurous nation into which 
alien blood is pouring itself at an unprecedented 
rate, likely to be held loyal to the faith of the 
fathers by listening to the competitive voices of 
one hundred and forty claimants shouting- out, 
like so many cabmen on the cur-bstone, their will- 
ingness to carry us to Heaven ? 

Dr. Shields thinks not, and tersely suggests by 
way of contrast and remedy — not a State Church 
(that would be the last thing which he or any 
sensible Christian would in these disestablishing 
days desire), but the United Church of the United 
States. 

But, over and above his battle-cry. Dr. Shields, 
with the instinct of wise leadership, has given us 
what is still better — a plan of campaign. The 
importance of the monograph in which this plan 
of campaign is outlined can scarcely be exagger- 
ated. Were it the production of a Protestant 
Episcopalian, it would probably, notwithstanding 
its high literary merits, fail of a hearing; for 
although the Anglican charmer has been long 
piping upon these shores, the people have as yet 
shown no very ready mind to dance. 

Coming, as it does, however, from a Presbyterian 
divine, a man widely known as a student of theol- 
ogy, a writer on philosophy and an expert in 
historical science, this plea for the acceptance of 
the Chicago-Lambeth Declaration as the likeliest 
stepping-stone towards the unification of Ameri- 
can Christianity simply cannot pass unheeded. 
Precisely such a note has not hitherto enforced 
itself upon our Babel. 



W. R. Huntington, D.D. ii 

If I were asked to say which I thought at once the 
strongest and the most suggestive of the twenty-six 
capitula into which Dr. Shields has broken up his 
essay, I should unhesitatingly fasten upon the one 
entitled The Unifying Power of the Episcopate. In 
this portion of his argument, Dr. Shields shows a 
largeness of view and breadth of sympathy which 
some of the more noisy of the champions of 
Episcopal prerogative within the Anglican lines 
might wisely emulate. 

It is here that his ab extra point of view helps 
him amazingly. He holds no brief for the 
" P. E. Church." Heaven forbid! — he is simply 
looking, in a judicial temper, at the needs of our 
American Christendom, and thinking that he sees 
in what way the Historic Episcopate might conceiv- 
ably minister to those needs; he gives his reasons 
for being of that mind. 

Here are some of his points: 

I St. It (the Historic Episcopate) is the de facto 
government of three-fourths, if not of four-fifths, 
of Christendom. 

2d. It bases church unity upon church polity, 
not upon systematic theology. 

3d. In its structure, it involves, in due organic 
relation, the Congregational, the Presbyterial and 
the Episcopal elements. 

He makes other points equally interesting in 
the course of the chapter. But I pause at this 
third one, because it illustrates, in a striking way, 
what is called in the Lambeth Articles, the adapta- 
tion of the Episcopate to "the varying needs of 
the nations and peoples called of God into the 
unity of His Church." 

As a matter of fact, this blending of the Congre- 
gational and Presbyterial elements with episcopacy 
pure and simple never, aftertheriseof the Papacy, 



12 The Historic Episcopate. 

had anything like an adequate embodiment until 
it found one in the system established in this 
country a hundred years ago, under the combined 
and mutually modifying influences of the high- 
church Seabury and the low-church White. 

That it does not exist at the present day in 
England under the Establishment, is well shown 
in the following utterance of one of the lay speak- 
ers at the recent Birmingham Church Congress: 

"We have," said Mr. Philip Vernon Smith, a 
London barrister, " too little power of self-govern- 
ment, but in a re-united church we should, as a 
necessary accompaniment of reunion, obtain, co- 
ordinate with and subordinate to the rightful func- 
tions of the Episcopacy, the legalization of some- 
thing of the elastic Wesleyan methods as regards 
services and evangelistic work; something of 
Congregational principles as regards the rights of 
congregations and parishioners to regulate, in 
part,, their own church affairs; and som_ething of 
the Presbyterian system of self-government." 

It is not as generally known as it ought to 
be that two out of the three desiderata upon which 
this English churchman lays so much stress, have 
been associated with the Historic Episcopate in the 
United States from the first day until now. 

This fact makes strongly in favor of that 
method of crystallization about an existing nucleus, 
that acceptance of one of our present denomina- 
tions as a rallying center, which, under the name 
of "unification by consolidation," Dr. Shields 
gently but firmly disallows. 

And yet, when we come to the essayist's own 
doctrine as to the way in which the Historic Epis- 
copate is to be made useful in the working out of 
unity, it seems to lack that very element of 
definiteness which the consolidation theory 



W. R. Huntington, D.D. 13 

supplies. His name for the method which 
he himself favors is, "Unification by organic 
growth." But how can "organic growth" so much 
as begin until we find some ridus for the germ, 
some definite furrow of mother earth into which 
the corn of wheat may be cast ? The case of the 
air-plant is exceptional Some point of actual 
contact must, as a rule, be found between seed 
and soil, between a theory and an existing 
condition of things, before any visible result can 
follow. 

Dr. Shields hints at receiving the Episcopate 
from a Roman Catholic, from a Moravian, from a 
Swedish source; but if the Episcopate of the race 
which gave us our language, and at least a good 
fraction of our law, were to be proffered to the 
Christian people of this land in the spirit and 
temper which pervade this monograph, all being 
frankly and ungrudgingly conceded which the 
Lambeth Articles concede, " consolidation " would 
no longer be the far-away and unattainable goal 
which it looks to Dr. Shields; rather, he would 
say to the Episcopal Church, as many of her own 
children are saying to her now, in the words of 
Charles Gore, " Promote reunion by being such a 
church as may make all Christian men desire thy 
fellowship." 

In any view of the matter, Dr. Shields deserves 
our reverence, our confidence and our gratitude. 
May he live to be a bishop in the United Church 
of the United States, ruling by aid of a Presby- 
terial synod the several localized congregations of 
his parish, a shepherd of souls loving, and loved by, 
not a beggarly fraction of the sheep in his vicinity, 
but the whole flock thereabouts pastured. This 
will be the Historic Episcopate brought back to 
its historic beginnings. W. R. Huntington. 



(Uett? ^orS. 

Why federation and not union at once? men ask 
impatiently. I answer for the same reason that 
we have "first the blade, then the ear, then the 
full corn in the ear." No one proposes federation 
as a finality, but only as an easy first step. 

Federation is suggested as the first process in 
the evolution of union. There must first be the 
true living desire for union. This, I believe it is 
safe to affirm, does already exist in sufficient 
volume and energy to warrant some practical 
movement toward the desired end. How shall 
we begin, at the point of greatest resistance or at 
the point of least resistance? Evidently the latter. 
Yet nearly every proposition looking toward 
Christian union begins at the point of greatest 
resistance. The various solemn flirtations with 
the Episcopal denomination would be laughable 
if the subject involved were not so sacred. That 
denomination is the most poorly equipped of any 
of the Protestant sects for the work of the union. 
Its unyielding, uncompromising Episcopate pre- 
sents the point of greatest resistance at the very 
outset. I have never yet seen even a hint from 
that quarter that proposed any concession at that 
point. Union? Yes, my dearlybeloved brethren, 
by all means, all of you become good Episcopa- 
lians and the thing is done in a trice, and the 
doxology is in order. Another point of great 
resistance meets us in proposing union with the 
Baptist denomination. One man among them 



J. H. EcoB, D.D. 15 

voices what is practically the feeling of all. 
''Every v*^ord of Baptist doctrine (referring to 
immersion) is infallibly true." The Baptists, 
therefore, are compelled by their doctrine, as the 
Episcopalians are by their polity, to demand that 
we must gain Christian union by going over bodily 
to them. All the large denominations present the 
same inertia or active resistance. 

The pride of history, wealth, numbers ; a sharply 
defined system of doctrine, a hard and fast polity, 
present a barricade bristling with points of resist- 
ance. The cause of Christian union is indefinitely 
postponed by footballing the subject back and 
forth by denominations that do not sincerely 
desire Christian union, do not feel an inward 
need of it, and which are constitutionally 
incapacitated for it. If I were to undertake a 
campaign in behalf of the unity of Christian 
nations, I would not begin with France and 
Germany. 

What then ? Why, plainly, the work must 
begin with the smaller, younger denominations, 
and with those which are nearest alike in doctrine 
and polity. And with these again we must seek 
the point of least resistance, which is federation. 
Our hearts are so slow and dark toward the 
spiritualities involved, and besides, there are so 
many obstacles in the way of property, trust- 
funds, colleges, boards, papers and salaried 
officers that union must come at last through a 
process of elimination and amalgamation. That 
process is federation. Our national life is a com- 
plete picture of the process. First came the 
sense of need for a closer relationship of the 
colonies, both on account of the evils of separate 
life and the advantages of closer relations. Then 



i6 The Historic Episcopate. 

came federation. Each colony was still jealous 
of its rights, surrendering as little as possible to 
the common federated life. But they placed 
themselves in the historic process of fusion, and 
every hour was moving them on toward that goal. 
Common wants, common needs, common dangers 
multiplied, till at last the conviction was forced 
home, " United we stand, divided we fall." The 
full sense of one indivisible national life came to 
us only after the terrific heats and the volcanic 
shakings of the Civil War, We are now a Union. 
I pray God that no such long and fierce historic 
process may await His Church. J. H. Ecob. 



^eo. ©at>i^ (Jt. (f eoc^ (Congregafionaf), 

Prof. Shields' remarkable paper has been 
read before several circles with which I am con- 
versant, and, apparently, in each instance, with 
the same result. My opportunity of hearing it 
was at the Diocesan House, Boston, last Spring. 
There was present a large company of Episcopal 
clergymen. Besides these there was quite a circle 
of invited guests. From the first sentence the 
paper compelled attention. This deepened, and 
glowed, and became luminous as the paper pro- 
ceeded. The broad, clear definitions, the com- 
prehensive grasp of argument, the wide reading 
and surprising learning, the discriminating and 
critical faculty, the effective but restrained humor, 
the sustained earnestness, the mighty cumulative 
force, the passionate but sober march to conclu- 
sions, — united in a climax of strong, intellectual 
persuasion and almost breathless expectancy when 
the paper closed. Hereatlength was a man's work. 
Here was a grasp of the very heart of the matter. 
Not some pleasing generalities, some benevolentbut 
valueless suggestions, some weak delineation of 
how not to do it, — but a real grapple with the 
great problem. This the more impressed those 
present because of the gravity, the caution, the 
absence of easy optimism, and the strong appre- 
hension of difficulties, which characterized the 
paper. "It marks an epoch," whispered one. 
"The like has not been heard in New England," 
exclaimed another, And when discussion was on, 



i8 The Historic Episcopate. 

notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, it was 
obvious how in the burning, religious passion of 
one, the thoughts of many hearts had been 
revealed. 

It has seemed to me that, in describing the 
paper's reception in such a company as that indi- 
cated, I could do more to bring before the reader's 
mind the significance of Prof. Shields' work, than 
in any remarks of my own. In the limited space 
still permitted me, I desire to make three points: 

1, Prof. Shields' paper does strong work at the 
start in indicating the insufficiency and futility of 
ordinary church unity schemes ; and in main- 
taining that something organic, specific and 
federative, in a very unifying sense, must now 
come forward to be discussed, if the subject is 
further to be pursued with advantage or even 
with intellectual self-respect. 

2. This general position —for, of course, I am 
not quoting the Professor's propositions in a single 
particular — has under it the tremendous vital 
force of a deeply stirred hunger and yearning 
after unity throughout large sections of Christen- 
dom. I am very confident that the intensity of 
this hunger is very much minimized by many 
persons who write upon the subject. Age, or 
large learning, or conspicuous position, or lives 
far too busy, or like causes, conspire, I am per- 
suaded, to hinder many of those who have the 
public ear on this matter from realizing the 
intensity of this soul's cry of our time. The new 
education, the new science, the new philosophy, 
the new grasp of our age on essentials and on 
reality, carry such a cry with them as an inevitable 
intellectual corollary. To the eye that has had even 
a faint foregleam of the coming unities, — schisni 



Rev. David N. Beach, 19 

and separation, above all in concerns the most 
fundamental, are a contradiction, and an imper- 
tinence. One has but to reside at a great 
university center for a time to sense this 
unspeakably. 

3. The great strength of Prof. Shields' position 
consists in its implication that the germs of unity 
lie potentially in our diversities ; that there is a 
trend of type in them which must return to unity; 
and that the seers of this movement have but to 
look well into the mighty life that pulses forward, 
notwithstanding schism, for the clews and 
prophecies of the coming unity. The fact, for 
example, that there are three great Protestant 
types, practically inclusive in principle of all 
Protestant polities, — the type which emphasizes 
the rule of the congregation, the type which does 
the same by the elders or Presbytery, and the 
type which does the same by the overseers or 
bishops, — and the fact that in the old communion 
all of these types were potentially present, and 
did each but need more thorough articulation, is 
a tremendous and pregnant consideration. 

Let no one fail to read the Professor's paper, 
and may it do for the wide English-speaking 
peoples what its oral utterance has accomplished 
for hundreds of devout souls! 

D. N. Beach. 



(^. §> e^fer, ©.©. (©tad^fes of €^si\ 
(ttm ^or& 

That Prof. Shields shouM have been invited to 
read his paper on I/ie Historic Episcopate as one of 
the planks in a proposed platform of church 
unity before audiences of Roman Catholics and 
Protestants in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, 
Baltimore and Washington, is a significant fact. 
But yet more significant is the fact that this essay 
should now be given to the public"in answer to 
many requests for its publication" by such a 
house as that of Charles Scribner's Sons. "The 
growth of public interest in the question" of 
union, "during the past ten years has," indeed, 
"been surprising. " This increasing public inter- 
est is manifested in m.any ways and on every hand. 
Good men are coming more and more to see "the 
absolute need of harmony and unity in order to 
establish the supremacy" of the Christian religion 
in all the earth. 

Believers are exhorted in the New Testament 
to endeaverto keep the unity of the Spirit in the 
bond of peace (Ep. 4: 3). Those who are 
called saints are told to mark and avoid those 
who cause divisions (Rom. 16: 17,18). Members 
of the Church of God are besought to speak the 
same things and to be perfectly joined together 
in the same mind and in the same judgment (iCor. 
1:10). Divisions among those who call on the 
name of Jesus Christ our Lord are evidences of 
remaining carnality (i Cor. 3:1-4). The Christ 
prayed that His personal friends and followers 



B. B. Tyler, D.D. 21 

might be united as the Father and Son are one 
(John 17:11). And this prayer was answered, for 
we read that after the Lord had been received up 
into Heaven His friends returned from the place 
of the ascension to an upper room in Jerusalem, 
where they "continued with one accord in prayer 
and supplication" (Acts 1:14), until ''the day of 
Pentecost was fully come," when ''suddenly they 
were all filled with the Holy Spirit. " The Christ 
also prayed for all who would believe in Him 
through the testimony of those v/hom He ordained 
to be His witnesses "both in Jerusalem, and in all 
Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost 
parts of the earth" (Acts, i :8), that they might be 
one, "as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, 
that they also may be one in Us; that the world 
may believe that Thou hast sent Me" (John 17: 
20,21). And this prayer also received an answer 
in the Apostolic Age, for we read that "the multi- 
tude" of those who "believed" in Jesus, as the 
Son of God, in Jerusalem, "were ofone heart and of 
one soul" (Acts 4 :32),and that as a result of this unity 
"a great company of the priests were obedient to 
the faith" (Acts 6:7). The Holy Spirit places 
sectarianism in a category with adultery, fornica- 
tion, uncleanness, licentiousness, idolatry, sor- 
cery, enmity, strife, jealousy, contention, envy, 
murder and drunkenness (Gal. 5:20). All these 
things, sectarianism and the rest, belong to the 
flesh and are opposed to the good Spirit of our 
God. On the contrary, the fruit of the Spirit is 
love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, good- 
ness, faith, meekness and self-control (Gal. 6 : 
22,23). 

There can be no reasonable doubt as to the 
desire of the head of the body, Jesus Christ our 



22 The Historic Episcopate. 

Lord, concerning the relation in which His disci- 
ples should stand toward Himself, and toward one 
another. 

The effort of Prof. Shields is to contribute to 
the production of this relation. 

His contention, however (p. 4), "that Chris- 
tian unity, spiritual oneness, already exists as a 
divine fundamental fact in the churches," is only 
true in part. Where this unity exists as a fact, 
fully, there will be no "problem" as to "how to 
express this Christian unity. " In some way such 
a unity will find an appropriate expression. 
The paramount difficulty with many of 
us who call ourselves Christians is that like those 
who were denominated "Saints" in Corinth, we 
are"carnal and Vv^alk as men." (i Cor. 3:1-4). 

Instead of saying that the unity for which the 
Christ prayed "rests upon an institution, not 
upon doctrines" (p. ;^6), why not say that it rests 
upon a person ? " Other foundation can no man 
lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus " (i Cor. 
3: 11). And St. Paul was discussing this very 
subject when he made that statement. 

I confess my inability to understand what is 
meant by "The Historic Episcopate." I know 
the nature of the Episcopate spoken of in the New 
Testament — is tAat " the Historic Episcopate ? " 

Prof. Shields tells us (p. 3) that in the "one 
Catholic Apostolic Church, of 'the first century,' 
we have an example and model of church unity." 
He also says truly that the " Ministry and the 
Sacraments are revealed in the Scriptures." 

Our author says (p. 9), that we may nof " hope 
to find all Christians at once becoming Baptists, 
or Congregationalists, or Methodists, or Presby- 
terians, or Episcopalians, or Romanists." True. 



B. B. Tyler, D.D. 23 

But cannot all v^ho love Christ, for the sake of 
unity, agree to be only Christians ? Dr. Shields 
exhorts us (p. 14) to "go back to the experience 
of early Christian society." "In that y^ri-/ organi- 
zation of the Church," he says, " we see Congre- 
gational, Presbyterial, Episcopal institutions, but 
no separate Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and 
Congregational denominations." " We behold all 
our unhappy divisions dwelling together in one 
undivided ApostoHc church." True enough ! 
Then why insist on one idea of church order and 
organization as non essential to union ? "What 
the Church has been once, may it not be again ?" 
I think that it may, and so labor and pray for the 
union of believers by a return to Christianity as it 
was before it was corrupted by the wisdom of 
men — its creed, its ordinances, and its simple 
spiritual life. B. B. Tyler. 



3o0ia^ ^frong, ©.©. (^ecrefar^ of t^e 
(gt)angeficaf Affiance), Qteuo ^gorft. 

I had planned to hear Dr. Shields' lecture, 
concerning whose position you ask my impres- 
sions, but was unable to do so. His position, 
however, I understand to be this, that Christian 
union is impossible, except on the basis of the 
Historic Episcopate. 

It is to be hoped that Dr. Shields has not 
demonstrated the truth of his position, as in that 
case many who now hope for Christian union 
would have to despair of it. 

There are among our brethren of the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church two views of the Historic 
Episcopate, fijst, that it is essential to valid orders 
and legitimate organization, and secoiid^ that it is 
desirable, but not essential. 

As I understand it, the first view is based on 
the doctrine that the divine grace flows through 
the one to the many, hence the necessity of a 
priesthood. This is the Roman Catholic doctrine, 
from which the position of the Congregationalists 
and Baptists is removed precisely one hundred and 
eighty degrees. They hold that the divine grace 
comes to the many — to every soul that will accept 
of it — and that authority is, therefore, derived by 
the one from the many, not by the many from the 
one. Every Christian is, therefore, a priest unto 
God. The clergyman is no more a priest than 
the layman. He differs from the layman only in 
the functions assigned him, his authority for 



JosiAH Strong, D. D. 25 

the discharge of which he derives from the many 
— the laity. 

Evidently this position is diametrically opposed 
to that of those who deem the Historic Episcopate 
essential to the validity of clerical orders and of 
church organization. There can be no possibility 
of compromise between them. The only alterna- 
tive to conflict is unconditional surrender; and 
Baptists and Congregationalists could not 
surrender so vital a point without deeming them- 
selves disloyal to the truth, which is true also of 
all non-Episcopal churches. 

Said Dr. Schaff in his last message to the 
churches (the Reunion of Christendom, pp. 21, 
23), " The ' Historic Episcopate ' is the stumbling- 
block to all non-Episcopalians, and will never be 
conceded by them as a condition of church unity, 
if it is understood to mean the necessity of three 
orders of the ministry, and of Episcopal ordina- 
tion in unbroken historic succession. . . .The 
non-Episcopal churches will never un-church 
themselves, and cast reproach on their ministry. 
They will negotiate with the Episcopal Church 
only on the basis of equality, and a recognition of 
the validity of their ministry. Each denomination 
must offer its ideal on the altar of reunion. *' The 
sooner the truth of these words is generally recog- 
nized, the sooner shall we make substantial prog- 
ress toward Christian union. 

If, on the other hand, the Historic Episcopate 
is presented as the basis of Christian union, not as 
essential, but only as desirable, the question at once 
arises: Why make that essential to the organiza- 
tion of all churches into one, which is conceded 
to be unessential to the legitimate organization of 
any? 



26 The Historic Episcopate. 

Such a position cannot be successfully defended 
as a sine qua non to church union. 

It seems to me, therefore, that the Historic 
Episcopate, instead of being "the only possible 
basis of union," is the great obstacle to the union 
of Protestant churches. I look for organic union, 
but along entirely different lines. 
Yours faithfully, 

JosiAH Strong 



To a symposium a man ought only to contribute 
his matured thought. But while I have a good 
many "irons in the fire," yet this "Historic Epis- 
copate" business of my old and brilliant Princeton 
fellow-student has never got in ^ * * * * 
My observation is that while bigoted sectarianism 
is dying out (except among the extreme High 
Church Episcopalians), yet denominational esprit 
du corps is about as strong as ever. If men don't 
work in their denominational lines, they don't 
work much anywhere. Christian Unity I go for; 
Church Unity on any basis looks like an "iri- 
descent dream" at present. 

Theodore L. Cuyler. 



^enr^ ^. ^fimson, ©.©. (Congregattcnaf), 

Prof. Shields' essay on "Historic Episcopacy" 
is interesting reading, whatever views one 
may have of church unity, or whatever convic- 
tions one may hold as to the method by v;hich it 
is eventually to be attained. So irenic a paper, 
like the genial spirit of the chief advocate of the 
miovement within the American Episcopal Church, 
Dr. W. R. Huntington, goes far to remove preju- 
dice and to prepare the way for accepting the 
desired conclusion. The great difficulty seems to 
be to hit upon some method of union, which, start- 
ing from the present situation, will make sure a 
result that will stand. At present each of the 
chief prophets of the movem^ent sees insuperable 
difficulties in the plan proposed by his confreres. 
Prof. Briggs' theory is a "mere confederation," 
and Dr. Huntington's theory is a "mere absorp- 
tion " in the eyes of Prof. Shields', while, in 
turn, the latter's theory of organic growth seems 
to involve, on the part of all, that surrender of 
existing institutions and ignoring of past history 
which would make it difficult of acceptance by 
any one. His view of the unifying power of the 
Episcopate is attractive and plausible, but in the 
light of the centuries lying between the early Church 
and the great Reformation, with their endless 
controversies and fatal feuds, seems hardly to 
give promise of power to introduce a permanent 
state of peace. The Lambeth Articles, whatever 
ultimate end they may serve in bringing about 



Henry A. Stimson, D.D. 29 

Christian unity, are accomplishing one good in 
enabling all Christians to clarify and adjust 
their own views of Christian truth and in helping 
some bodies of Christians who are to-day excep- 
tionally exclusive, to get a new light upon their 
attitude toward their fellows. Perhaps, when the 
exclusive spirit which has led some bearing the 
Christian name to be intolerant and supercilious 
has given place to a recognition of the true 
brotherhood and the equality of standing of all 
believers before the Lord, and to a plane of common 
Christian service, the Lambeth Articles may be 
found to serve a good purpose as the beginning 
of negotiations for church unity. When that day 
comes any proposition, put forth from any source, 
will serve the purpose of introducing a discussion 
which would be very sure to lead to both unity 
and peace. Meanwhile the discussion may well 
go on with all possible interest in those denomi- 
national bodies where particular exclusiveness 
prevails, and those who within such circles are 
giving themselves to the good cause should have 
the cordial approval and cheerful support of all 
who stand outside waiting and watching for the 
result, with gratitude to God. 

Henry A. Stimson. 



(Jtetw ^oi-S. 

It seems paradoxical to assert that an essay is 
too valuable to be published, and yet this paradox 
has been exemplified in the case of an essay upon 
Church Unity which was written a year ago by 
the Rev. Dr. Shields, the distinguished Presbyte- 
rian Divine and Professor in Princeton University. 
This paper has been read by Dr. Shields before 
the collected clergy of various Christian bodies, 
as also before mixed assemblies of ministers of all 
denominations, including Roman Catholics, and at 
each successive reading some of those present 
requested that it might be delivered by the Pro- 
fessor himself to another clerical meeting before 
its publication. 

The essay has now appeared in print, and it will 
undoubtedly prove to be one of the most impor- 
tant contributions to church unity that has yet 
appeared. No synopsis of its contents can give 
any adequate idea of its value, for the different 
parts are so correlated and carefully balanced that 
each must be heard to appreciate the force of the 
combined whole. Dr. Shields begins by distin- 
guishing church unity from Christian unity, or the 
Oneness of all believers in Christ. The one is 
subjective, the other is objective; the first is spir- 
itual, the second is organic, and only by a confu- 
sion of thought can they be regarded as identical. 
Yet the writer emphasizes the fact that the former 
must precede the latter. And in this he is follow- 
ing the lead of Christ Himself. Unity must begin 



H. Y. Satterlee, D.D. 31 

at God, not at Man ; it must work downward from 
what is highest, not upward from what is beneath ; 
and our Lord in His High Priestly Prayer for His 
Church (St. John XVII) prays (i) that His disci- 
ples may know His Oneness with the Father, (2) 
that they may be One with Him, and (3) that they 
be One with each other. 

As Dr. Shields points out, the first part of our 
Lord's Prayer is already answered, at least so far as 
all Evangelical denominations are concerned, and 
later on he adds that evidence of its fulfilment is 
already to be seen in the general agreement re- 
garding the doctrine of the Trinity and the facts 
of Christ's life as they are set forth in the Apos- 
tles* and Nicene creeds. Furthermore, all intelli- 
gent Christian observers will agree with him when 
he says that to-day and especially in America, the 
tendency to sect-making and division has gone, 
and that ''the spirit of unity itself is seizing Chris- 
tian masses like a passion, and carrying their 
wrangling leaders along with them as with the 
might of a revolution. Never before in any 
Christian century, nowhere else in any Christian 
country have all the conditions been so favorable 
for realizing the long-lost ideal of the Holy Cath- 
olic and Apostolic Church." 

Then, rehearsing the several claims of the his- 
toric churches, and of the reformed churches, in 
words that must be read to be appreciated, 
he points out the need of a practical con- 
sensus, and says that the only practical plan for 
an actual existing consensus of the churches which 
will be comprehensive and, at the same time, 
elastic enough to unite the various bodies of 
Christendom without eliminating those distinctive 
features of faith and practice which each holds 



32 The Historic Episcopate. 

dear, is the basis for Christian unity set forth by 
the bishops of the Anglican Church in the Chicago- 
Lambeth Quadrilateral " This practical quality 
of the Episcopal declaration," writes Dr. Shields, 
" is one of its chief merits. In its very nature it 
is a unifying manifesto. It exhibits to the world 
the great things in which Christian bodies can 
agree, and exalts them above the small things in 
which they differ. Each of the four articles, the 
Scriptures, the Creeds, the Sacraments, the Epis- 
copate, will be found to serve this purpose as 
successively stated." Then, after showing how 
true this is regarding the first three articles, he 
adds: "The Historic Episcopate is everywhere 
adaptable to Congregationalists, Presbyterians 
and Episcopalians of every type, as well as to 
those without as those within the pale of that 
Episcopate." Asa proof of this last point Dr. 
Shields goes on to show the catholicity, adapta- 
bility and unifying power of the Historic Episco- 
pate in words that will be as helpful and suggest- 
ive to many Episcopalians themselves as to their 
non-Episcopal brethren. 

But the most valuable part of the whole essay is 
its conclusion, in which the only three ways in 
which church unity can be restored, even under 
the Historic Episcopate: (i) Classification by con- 
federation, (2) Unification by consolidation, and 
(3) Unification by organic growth, are compared 
and examined. With remarkable insight into the 
profound principles of Christian unity, which all 
beneath the surface hold in common, Dr. Shields 
places organic growth as a mean between the 
two extremes of confederation on the one hand 
and consolidation on the other, which combines 
what is good in each while it avoids the evil. The 



H. Y. Satterlee, D.D 33 

whole subject is bristling with difficulties, and the 
longer it is pondered, the more insuperable those 
difficulties appear. No human plan of organiza- 
tion can overcome them. No artificial method 
will dissolve them, but here in organic growth is 
an influence which all must recognize as a power 
from above. It is divine and not human; it is 
natural and not artificial ; it is living and not 
mechanical ; it centralizes itself not in any one 
Christian body, but in all of them. Though men 
may not create it, they can develop it by recog- 
nizing and yielding themselves up to this force of 
spiritual gravitation. 

The four Chicago-Lambeth articles present an 
ideal toward which every Christian body can 
work. If it be a true ideal then it is the duty of 
each to propagate its influence ; if it be false in 
any respect then it is the duty of each to show 
exactly where it is false and how it ought to be 
modified, for to even the intelligent Christian 
observer the present divided state of Christendom 
is the crowning evil of the times. 

H. Y. Satterlee. 



Wiffiam ga^es 02?ar^, ®.®. (Congre^afionaf), 
(Editor of f^e *'3n^e|?en^enf/' (l)^et» ^orS. 

I am a great believer in ideals. I am also a 
great believer in practical politics. The question 
of the organic union of Christendom is one of 
lofty idealism; it is also one of practical ecclesi- 
astical politics. The purpose sought, the union 
or consolidation of the various branches of 
the Christian Church, recalls the noble ideal which 
our Lord had in His mind when he left His 
disciples not without comfort in His departure. 
The plan to accomplish this ideal presented by- 
Professor Shields has to do simply with the side 
of practical ecclesiastical politics. It is not a 
moral or religious question particularly, but a 
question of condition and method, of compromise 
and policy. 

On the face of it the question of church union 
is one of compromise. Religious bodies hold 
different views, use different methods and 
practise different rites. For the sake of union 
they ought to be willing to compromise a great 
deal. The example is that of the first general 
council at Jerusalem, whose conclusion, we are 
told, " seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to 
us." As it included the writers of pretty much 
all the New Testament, and as we are definitely 
told it had the endorsement of the Holy Ghost, it 
has a higher attestation of inspiration than any 
other passage in the Bible. It was the result of 
a full discussion between the two great parties in 
the early Church, and was a temporary compromise 



William Hayes Ward, D.D. 35 

made for the sake of avoiding a schism into two 
denominations. Believers were told that they 
would do well if they would avoid four things: 
fornication, things offered to idols, things 
strangled, and blood. Of those prohibitions one 
stands, because founded in our moral nature. 
The other three were but temporary, and two of 
them are never mentioned again in the Bible. St. 
Paul, who submitted for the time for his brethren's 
sake, within ten years taught that things offered 
to idols might be eaten if nobody objected. Here 
is our great illustration and example of a holy 
compromise for the sake of unity, one that we 
ought to be willing to follow just as soon as we 
can once get together in a Jerusalem conference, 
and with the Holy Ghost. 

But that is still impossible, and will be for a 
long time to come. In the first place, the Roman 
Catholic Church distinctly declares that it will 
consent to no compromise. Nothing short of the 
acknowledgment of the supreme authority of an 
infallible Pope will be considered. The Roman 
Catholic Church is the largest body in the 
Christian world. Its refusal ends for a long time 
to come the spangled dream of the reunion of 
Christendom. 

Equally impracticable is any present thought of 
an organic union of Protestants with Greeks, 
Armenians, Jacobites, Nestorians, Copts or 
Abyssinians. Some of them are out of reach, and 
others would not consent. 

These are the hard facts which practical eccle- 
siastical politics must accept; and having accept- 
ed them it is of no use for any one to brood over 
the subject any further, unless some gracious sun- 
set hours of life can be given to Patmos visions. 



36 The Historic Episcopate. 

That leaves us Protestantism. Can Protestant- 
ism agree on a compromise, and what shall it be? 
It is the practical, not any academical question 
which concerns us. If any comprehensive attempt 
were to be made to unite Protestant Christendom 
in some organic way, this must be either by con- 
federation, or by an organic union that will make 
one ecclesiastical body out of many and efface 
their dividing lines. 

I. Of these two the former would of course be 
the easier, as it requires no breaking up of old 
associations and no general suppresion of views or 
practices. All that would be required is that 
each denomination should recognize every other 
denomination as a part of the great Christian 
Church, entitled to its own doctrinal views and its 
methods of government, and that they should 
fully fellowship each other, and meet at stated 
intervals, once in five or ten years, for acquaint- 
anceship and mutual counsel. That would give a 
really united Protestantism, as truly united as is 
the Roman Church, and would do away with the 
reproach of so many "subdichotomies of schism." 

Is it practicable? That is our only question. 

No, not as embracing all Protestantism, nor ail 
evangelical Protestantism, even in our own 
country. Every one knows that the largest fam- 
ily of Protestant denominations in the country, 
the Baptist family, would not go into such a 
federation. Baptists, as a whole, do not believe 
that other denominations are organized on a suf- 
ficiently regular basis to allow such a recognition 
as federation requires. The same is true of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church. Whatever its 
Broad Church members might say, yet the attempt 
to bring that church into a federation which would 



William Hayes Ward, D.D. 37 

allow equal rank and fellowship to Baptists, Pres- 
byterians or Congregationalists with their merely 
local bishops, would cause a split in the denomi- 
nation itself. It is simply impracticable with 
either Baptists or Episcopalians until they shall 
have mastered the dominant schismaticism in 
their own bodies. 

2. The other conceivable method is that of 
organic union, the dividing lines between the 
denominations being obliterated. 

This requires that each of the denominations 
should lay down its minirrium quid; that agreement 
should be obtained by reducing all to their least 
common denominator. Baptists, Presbyterians, 
Episcopalians, Methodists, etc., must each tell 
what they will not give up, or what is the same 
thing, what they will insist upon in the fusion. A 
beginning in this direction has been made by the 
Protestant Episcopal Church. It is remarkable 
that no other church has done the same thing. 

It is not a difficult thing to draw up what is the 
common Protestant creed; but when each denom- 
ination had laid down that on which it would 
insist, it would not be found that this would be 
the common Protestant creed. We should have 
precisely the same difficulty as before, only inten- 
sified. If Baptists and Episcopalians cannot abide 
each other or the rest of Protestant Christendom 
in federal union, much less can they in organic 
union. The fact is too palpable to be denied. 

The proposal of the Episcopalians, embodied in 
the Chicago-Lambeth Articles, is hardly worth 
discussing. It offers no compromise, but simply 
affirms the doctrinal and ecclesiastical position of 
that church. Its first article affirms the Holy 
Scripture, on which all Christianity rests. Its 



38 The Historic Episcopate. 

second article affirms the Apostles' Creed, a pass- 
ably good creed, but one of no authority and little 
weight, and unhappy in the balance of its state- 
ments. It is not worth being required as the basis 
of agreement. The third article requires a particu- 
lar v/ay of administering the two sacraments, thus 
not only excluding the Quakers, but putting an 
emphasis on rite, and the method of a rite, which 
Christianity puts only on the spirit. The fourth 
is even more of the essence of formality and Jewish 
Pharisaism in that it insists that the kingdom of 
God rests on bishops, and a certain sort of bishops, 
called "historical," meaning, as their representa- 
tive men tell us, diocesan bishops possessing a 
certain "succession." 

To this demand, the chief one that has attracted 
discussion, I understand that Prof. Shields is 
ready to yield. I understand that he would have 
Presbyterianism become Episcopacy and have 
Presbyterian ministers ordained by Episcopal 
bishops, and perhaps consecrate bishops of their 
own. Why does he do this? Simply because our 
Episcopal brethren declare that they will unite on 
no other condition. Why should they demand 
the acceptance of Episcopacy any more than 
Baptists should demand the rejection of it ! 
There is no reason why. Either demand is 
arrogance, and arrogance is not the road to 
Christian union. The large majority of Protest- 
ants believe — the overwhelming majority in this 
country — that the Apostolic Church had no 
diocesan episcopacy, and they see no reason why 
people should not have liberty in the matter. To 
demand that they accept it as the condition of 
union seems to them like the imposition of circum- 
cision on the Gentile Christians. They are 



William Hayes Ward, D.D. 39 

perfectly willing to allow and recognize it, but 
not to be enslaved to it. Were the Presbyteri- 
ans, whom Prof. Shields addresses, to accept 
ordination by Episcopal bishops, and so become 
incorporated with Episcopalianism, that would not 
be a step toward church unity but a step away from 
it; for it would make the schism greater between 
them and Baptists, Congregationalists and even 
Methodists. 

The Episcopalians have offered their ultimatum, 
and the reception it has received proves that there 
is no hope in it as a basis of union. Now let 
Baptists offer theirs, Presbyterians theirs, Metho- 
dists theirs, Lutherans theirs, and let us see 
whether Episcopalians will be any more ready to 
accept these than other bodies have been to 
accept theirs. As a Congregationalist I can 
imagine, after full deliberation, our National 
Council offering some such tentative basis as 
this: 

1. The acceptance of Jesus Christ as the 
revealer of God and the divine Teacher and 
Saviour of the world. 

2. The Bible as the record of God's progressive 
revelation of Himself and of His Son to the 
world. 

3. Love of God and love of man as the central 
teaching of the Bible and of Christ, and the test 
of the possession of the Spirit of God. 

4. Liberty in the search after truth, in the use 
of ordinances and the methods of church admin- 
istration. 

Is there any present hope of such a minimum 
quid as this being accepted by the Episcopalians? 
Not a bit, and hardly by Baptists, Methodists and 
Presbyterians. Yet it is a hundredfold more hope- 



40 The Historic Episcopate. 

ful as a basis of union than the Episcopalian 
quadrilateral. But were it accepted it would not 
mean consolidation, but federation — and that is, I 
think, the only hope of general church union within 
even telescopic vision. 

But there is every hope of success in the minor 
church unions which seek to consolidate the 
denominations which are embraced in a denomi- 
national family, as all the sections of Presbyteri- 
anism, or of the Baptists, or the Methodists. Here 
is field enough for the labors of a sanctified 
ecclesiastical statesmanship. The rest must wait. 
William Hayes Ward. 



(Reo. T37m. Sorfiee Coofeg (€<»ngregaf(onftf), 

Confessedly Doctor Shields treats of a castle in 
the air, a structure whose gates, walls and towers 
are the bars of light shot through the early 
twilight by a coming greater day. Therefore it 
is not only well in the future and as yet quite 
intangible, but to many absolutely invisible. Yet 
Saint John saw it long ago and in its perfected 
form, and saw it in the same quarter coming dov/n 
to earth "out of heaven." Doctor Shields' vision 
and report of it are most cheering to all those who 
look and long for that coming day of the new 
Catholic Church, the day when real campaigning 
shall take the place of the present guerilla warfare. 

His essay is another sign, a signal proof that 
Christian life is asserting itself against eclesiasti- 
cism, and beginning to insist that in the necessary 
alliance between the two, it, by God-given right, 
is master and not servant; and Christian life it is, 
springing from and guided by the Holy Ghost, 
and not any theory working by artificial means, 
that is to bring the Church to unity, and realize 
the desire and prayer of the Christ. So long as 
that life is regarded as an energy, subject and 
confined to a mechanism, like steam or electricity, 
a divinely contrived mechanism completed for all 
time in the apostolic age, so long Christian unity 
and the victories of combined Christian forces are 
impossible — at any rate until the Creator ceases 
to cut human material on such diverse patterns. 
Each sect knows too well that that heavenly 



42 The Historic Episcopate. 

mechanism is its own sole and exclusive property. 
When, however, we come to realize that the Church 
is an organism^ a living body as Paul thought of it, 
of v/hich divinely controlled Christian life is not 
only the moving power, as in a machine, but actu- 
ally the creator, we have scarcely more than an 
antiquarian interest as to whether our sect or 
some other preserves the primitive type. A more 
important inquiry takes precedence, the inquiry 
as to what were the forms which in the times past 
most like our own the divine Spirit led the Church 
to assume, and what, judging from Providential 
guidance heretofore, are the types He seems to 
be indicating for the Church of to-day? 

In times of beginnings or of ecclesiastical despot- 
ism, times of simple problems and intensity of 
feeling, the divine presence has been manifest 
repeatedly and signally in churches of the Congre- 
gational type. In times when liberty was running 
into license, especially in those practical elements 
of belief which govern conduct; when Christianity 
was in danger of disintegrating, the Presbyterian 
order of representative government has, from the 
council of Jerusalem down, proved an eminently 
conservative agency, and has demonstrated by its 
works the presence of the divine Spirit. Distinct- 
ively, however, ours is an age neither of ecclesi- 
astical despotism nor of religious disintegration, 
certain partisans of radicalism on the one hand 
and mediasvalism on the other to the contrary 
notwithstanding. Yet since liberty and truth do 
still need to be conserved, it is not to be doubted 
that congregational control of congregational 
matters and the fundamentals of the Presbyterian 
polity are to be features of the Church of the 
future. 



Rev. Wm. Forbes Cooley. 43 

Thus far we of the Puritan and the Reformed 
churches are substantially agreed. We are at one, 
also, probably, in esteeming this a preeminently 
practical age, an age of colossal human problems. 
Why, then, in the face of the historic examples of 
the Church of the Ante-Nicene period, the Medi- 
aeval Church and the more recent phenomenal 
advance of the Methodist Episcopal Church, should 
we shut our eyes to the fact that in periods of 
outward exigency, when great work is to be done 
and great secular foes are to be fought, rather 
than problems of faith to be solved or liberty to 
be won, the Episcopate, be its origin what it may, 
has by its victories and its services to the Church 
vindicated its claim to divine sanction ? We shall 
not be unorthodox (Luke 16:8), if we open our 
eyes. **The children of this world" have discov- 
ered the principle involved. A theological semi- 
nary may be left to shift without a president; but 
in affairs neither business nor political adminis- 
tration nor war is intrusted to a multiple executive. 

Wm. Forbes Cooley. 



fes6or in ©rett) 2^0eofogicaf ^eminar^* 

I am compelled to disappoint you in relation to 
the article on Dr. Shields' book. I have not had 
time to read it with care, and do not wish to 
write on that topic hastily. I have already 
discussed a kindred topic with him in T/te Century, 
and have given my judgment of the proposed 
reunion in The Church Revieiv. The feeling v/hich 
is uppermost in my mind when I think of the 
proposal, is that the Historic Episcopate is 
iVpostolic Succession disguised. The disguise 
imposes on the unsuspecting, and is used as a 
means of making what would be otherwise offen- 
sive, acceptable. Are we to admit that our 
churches have all along been no churches? our 
sacraments been no sacraments? our ministers 
only laymen? Yet this is all implied in the accept- 
ance of the offer of the Protestant Episcopal 
bishops. And, moreover, must we accept the 
dogma of baptismal regeneration ?-f or the Historic 
Episcopate is the depository of grace, and grace 
flows to believers through their ordination. 

George R. Crooks. 



(Beorge ^. (Bafee, ®.®., (Congtegafionafisf,) 
ipUBt^eni 3oi»a £offecje, (Brinneff, 3ot»a» 

There are two questions concerning church 
unity: Is it a good thing as an end in itself ? 
What do we want church unity for? 

To the first we might all say, yes. But after 
all it would not be a very important matter. If 
the Church is an end in itself, we can get on quite 
comfortably as we are. Whether we have one 
denomination or a thousand is of little conse- 
quence, so long as each one is contented in its 
own work, and satisfied to build itself up in its 
own way. The analogy of the family is perti- 
nent. Each man is supposed to be contented in 
his own family, irrelatively to other families. Or 
it may please all families to unite in a community. 
Whichever they like may be, all may be well. 
But it ought to be impossible to consider church 
unity as an end. That is a matter interesting 
enough for us as ecclesiastics to work or play 
with, but no divine necessity seems to be about it. 

If, on the other hand, we consider what the 
Church is in the world for anyhow, the question 
of church unity of some sort becomes of impor- 
tance in a measure out of comparison with its 
significance before. The Church is in the world 
on an apostolic mission. By its efficiency in 
accomplishing the end whereto it was sent will it 
be judged. Its mission is its only raison d'etre. 
In the sixty-five pages of Dr. Shields' essay there 
is not a syllable, unless it has been accidentally 
overlooked, which touches this second question. 



46 The Historic Episcopate. 

So far as would appear from the pages of the 
essay, the question has never appeared above the 
horizon of the writer. That, however, would be 
a hasty conclusion, and it is really inconceivable 
that one who can write with such perspicuous 
lucidity on the minor topic has failed to measure 
that topic's importance by its relation to the 
larger one. It is probably a piece of consum- 
mate art that one question only was discussed, 
and that, with the topic before the writer, was 
necessarily the smaller one. 

Judged in that way, there are only words of 
praise for it. Such an essay could be produced 
by nothing short of wide and deep scholarship, 
a generous and sympathetic view of other men 
than himself and other institutions than his own, 
by a spirit most catholic and fair, by a devotion 
to a scholarly and exact interpretation of history, 
which makes his treatment of a topic that fairly 
bristles with prejudices at every step, almost 
faultlessly fair and true. 

If, as the writer says, the Historic Episcopate 
"neither enjoins nor forbids the doctrine of 
apostolical succession, presented as an historic 
institution apart from any theory of its origin and 
claims, it allows all such theories, without repres- 
sing any of them," then it would seem that any 
fair-minded Christian who recognizes the desira- 
bility of church unity under any method, could 
accept it. An episcopate of that nature need be 
in no respect more anti-democratic than the 
crown of England is at present. It would prob- 
ably be admitted by those most competent to 
judge that the English monarch is, as now consti- 
tuted and estimated, an aid to democracy. 

We all know when we are perfectly frank that 



George A. Gates, D.D. 47 

some sort of episcopacy is universal in all the 
affairs of men. Men naturally want and naturally 
follow leadership. Sometimes the leaders are 
self-appointed, and then there is apt to be diffi- 
culty, and ought to be. But if the leaders can be 
fairly representative, whether by election or some 
method of succession wide enough and plastic 
enough to insure real representation, there would 
seem to be no reason why ultra ecclesiastical 
democrats like Congregationalists could not accept 
all that Dr. Shields says; much more ought, as he 
clearly points out, Presbyterians to do so ; much 
more still those who already have an episcopate 
in some form, like the Methodists. It probably 
is not the fact of the Historic Episcopate so much 
as it is the superadded notion of exclusive privi- 
legism which creates the difficulty. The church 
world will not rebel against election or succession 
to sacrificial service. It will and ought to rebel 
against exclusiveness and privilege, and the 
assumption of rights and power based on these. 
Dr. Shields makes a valuable contribution to the 
current discussion of this crucial point in church 
unity, namely, the Historic Episcopate, when he in 
a sentence or two frees it from these extraneous 
and unessential elements. In short, most any of 
us could go with Phillips Brooks' idea of the 
Historic Episcopate. 

Such church unity as Dr. Shields describes with 
prophetic clearness of vision does not need to 
involve overlooking the mission of the great 
denominations of Protestantism and their positive 
contributions to human life. Many of these 
achievements are of permanent value. They 
were lifts over places which the progress of the 
Church and race had sometime to pass. 



48 The Historic Episcopate. 

There is work in the years just before us for the 
Church to do so great that church unity is likely to 
seem almost a trivial step to take. The world is 
to be won to Christ, and pressure outside the 
Church will more than likely force some measure 
of church unity at any cost. It is a fair question 
whether v/ithout that pressure from the outside 
the divisions of Christendom can be brought to 
their higher senses; can be made to see that the 
things concerning which contention has so long 
been made must disappear from the field of 
thought and action, in order that the Church may 
fling itself, with the divine self-renunciation of its 
Lord and Master, into the great world of human 
sin and need, unto the world's redemption. 

George A. Gates. 



of C^miian (^niii^. 

For three years I have sought ways and means 
of promoting unity among the followers of Christ. 
From this practical side I am led to the same 
conclusion that Dr. Shields has reached by his 
study of ecclesiastical history. As he says, 
Christian unity and organic Church unity are two 
separate ideas. Christian unity is helped by 
everything that tends to exalt Christ above dogma 
in the minds of the people. It is this element in 
the Brotherhood of Christian Unity which causes 
it to be received with so much favor. But when 
the question of an actual union of Christian 
denominations is considered, and a system is 
sought which will, in the course of time, change 
a divided Christendom into a united Christendom, 
it appears to me that Dr. Shields' position is 
impregnable. It is a most striking providence, 
that a Christian teacher, whose ecclesiastical 
affiliations are all on " the other side, " has been 
led to place the issue so clearly before us. 

Theodore F. Seward, 



(netware, (It. 3. 

In the year 1886 the House of Bishops of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States 
formulated four articles as a basis upon which the 
Protestant Churches, or for the matter of that, all 
the churches of Christendom, might be united. 
These articles were approved by the Lambeth 
conference of 1888, and sent forth with the cordial 
endorsement of that august body. The subject of 
the reunion of Christendom has been fully treated 
by Professor Shields, of Princeton, in a paper 
which is now published under the title of 
"The Historic Episcopate: An Essay on the 
Four Articles of Church Unity Proposed by the 
American House of Bishops and the Lambeth 
Conference." 

In the consideration of a matter of such vast 
importance certain questions naturally occur to 
thoughtful minds. 

First. Is such a union desirable ? 

Second. Is the proposed basis of union 
adequate ? 

Third. Is union on this basis practicable ? 

As to the first of these questions, there can be 
very little difference of opinion. It is taken for 
granted that all Christian people are agreed that if 
such a union can be brought about without the 
sacrifice of principle or of any fundamental doctrine, 
it would undoubtedly be of incalculable benefit to 
the cause of Christianity. The aggressive power 
of the Church would be greatly increased, there 



David Waters, D D. 51 

would be a wiser and more economical use of men 
and means in carrying on that work, and, above 
all, the unity of the Church would be visibly 
manifested in such a way that the world would 
have no difficulty in understanding its reality. 
There is, however, one thing to be kept in mind, 
which is apparently not seldom forgotten in such 
a discussion as this — that there is a real, substan- 
tial unity between all the members of the house- 
hold of faith. They are all one in Christ. He is 
the head and they are the members of His spiritual 
body, although differing in name, function and 
office. This, I think, is sometimes lost sight of, 
and outward uniformity and conformity to an 
established form of ritual and polity mistaken for 
that genuine unity which makes all true believers in 
Christ. It was in attempting to enforce this out- 
ward uniformity that the government of the day 
persecuted the Covenanters of Scotland to the 
death and inflicted grievous suffering upon the 
Nonconformists of England. 

Regarding the second of these questions, as to 
the adequacy of the proposed basis as finally 
formulated by the Lambeth Conference of 1888, 
and which is strenuously supported by Professor 
Shields, the simplest method will be an examina- 
tion of each article in the proposed basis. They 
are as follows : 

1. " The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New 
Testaments as containing all things necessary to 
salvation, and as being the rule and ultimate 
standard of faith." This article will undoubtedly 
be accepted as the foundation upon which a united 
Church must be built. 

2. ** The Apostles' Creed as the baptismal 
symbol and the Nicene Creed as the sufficient 
statement of the Christian faith." 



52 The Historic Episcopate. 

In the confessions of the churches of the 
Reformation and the bodies which have sprung 
from them, there is a very much fuller statement 
of doctrine than that which is to be found in these 
creeds. Excellent as they are, and satisfactory 
so far as they go, there are probably some who 
will have no hesitation in saying that they do not 
go far enough. For example, the recent reply of 
the English Presbyterian Synod to the Archbishop's 
letter spoke of hesitation in accepting the Nicene 
Creed as " the sufficient statement of the Christian 
faith," and then goes on to say : " Had it been pro- 
posed to negotiate with the doctrinal articles of 
the Thirty-nine as a basis we (like our forefathers 
in earlier times) would have recognized in them 
a body of doctrine common to us with our 
Anglican brethren, on the basis of which we might 
approach each other with good hope of agreement. " 

Notwithstanding such objections, let us take it 
for granted that the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene 
Creed form a sufficiently broad foundation for the 
united church to stand upon — provided that the 
various denominations who enter into that union 
shall be still permitted to hold their own doctrinal 
standards, in so far as they are not inconsistent 
with the doctrinal symbols of the united church. 
In that case, other things being satisfactory, 
union may be both possible and practicable. 

3. The two sacraments ordained by Christ 
Himself — Baptism and the Supper of the Lord — 
ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of 
institution and of the elements ordained by Him. 

There can be very little doubt as to the general 
acceptance of this article; it being understood 
that the mode of administering baptism, whether 
by immersion, affusion or sprinkling shall be left 



David Waters, D. D. 53 

to the judgment of the various churches entering 
into the projected union. Whether the Society of 
Friends can be brought to agree to this article 
may be questioned. 

4. The last of these articles reads as follows: 
The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the 
methods of its administration to the varying needs 
of the nations and peoples called of God into the 
unity of His church. 

This, we apprehend, is the chief point where 
difficulty is certain to arise. The assumption 
underlying the claims put forth on behalf of the 
Historic Episcopate is this — that the Historic 
Episcopate is the divinely appointed method of 
church government and administration, and that 
those churches which can trace their existence 
back to the time of the Apostles by means of the 
Episcopate, and those only, have a right to the 
title of Church; and, further, that all- valid orders 
must come through the Episcopate. Now in the 
encyclical letter of the Lambeth Conference, all 
other sections of the Church are spoken of not as 
churches but simply as bodies, e. g., "We gladly 
and thankfully recognize the real religious work 
which is carried on by Christian bodies not of our 
communion." On the other hand, it is perfectly 
clear that the various churches of the Reforma- 
tion holding the Presbyterian system held that the 
divinely appointed order was that of the Presby- 
terate, that the term presbyter and bishop were 
interchangeable, that the presbyter was a bishop 
and the bishop a presbyter. It was held that 
there was absolutely no countenance given in the 
New Testament to the idea of the modern episco- 
pate, and that as a matter of historical fact, the 
Episcopate does not appear until about the middle 



54 The Historic Episcopate. 

of the Second Century. Professor Ramsay, in his 
work on " The Church in the Roman Empire," in 
tracing the organization of the Church, says 
that it may be described thus: i. ''Each indi- 
vidual community was ruled by a grada- 
tion of officials, at whose head was the 
bishop, and the bishop represented the 
commiunity." This was the state of things in the 
year a. d. 170. The Presbyterian would natu- 
rally say that this represents the parish with the 
pastor at the head of the church as the overseer 
or bishop. As I am not arguing the question 
of the divine right of episcopacy or presbytery, 
or any other form of church government, I 
simply refer to these statements so that w^e may 
see what the actual state of the case is in this 
discussion. 

We now^ come to the third question, viz.. Is 
union on this basis practicable ? 

In reply, I think this must be said, that as 
long as the Episcopal Church holds that the 
Episcopal is the only divinely authorized form 
of church government and episcopal ordination, 
the only regular ordination for the Christian 
ministry union on the basis proposed by the 
Lambeth Conference is impracticable. It is both 
impracticable and impossible, unless the ministry 
and members of other churches are willing to 
become Episcopalian, both in theory and practice. 
As a case in point, it may be mentioned that the 
answers sent by the Baptist Union, the Wesleyan 
Methodist Conference, and the Presbyterian 
Synod of England in reply to the letter of the 
Archbishop, in which he had forwarded the reso- 
lutions of the Lambeth Conference to these 
bodies, all treat the clause concerning the 



David Waters, D. D. 55 

Historic Episcopate as barring the way to union. 
They are all agreed in understanding the Historic 
Episcopate to naean the Diocesan Episcopate, and 
they are also agreed in affirming that this is not 
primitive and apostolic. 

Summing up the whole matter and setting 
aside any objections which may be made to the 
adequacy of the doctrinal basis as something 
which might be overcome, it is to my mind per- 
fectly clear that no general union of the churches 
can be formed on the basis of the proposal of 
the Lambeth Conference with the statement 
regarding the Historic Episcopate as one of the 
fundamental articles of the basis of union. 

Good will, no doubt, come out of the discus- 
sion, and churches of like faith and order will 
probably see their way to come together in 
closer bonds, as the various branches of the 
Presbyterian and Methodist churches in Canada 
have already done, and as the churches forming 
" The Alliance of the Reformed Churches hold- 
ing the Presbyterian system " are doing in some 
measure in their quadrennial councils. 

David Waters. 



^et>. (Biffiert (Hex^ (^resB^ferian), (^iseionarg 
to C^ina. 

The paper prepared by Dr. Shields is the result 
of many years of investigation, and being by one 
who is a Presbyterian on a system that is Episco- 
pal, the ideas presented are worthy of attention 
for the breadth of view, comprehensiveness of 
scope and liberality of aspiration which they 
exhibit. The argument is not that of a novice. 

Dr. Shields sets himself to the defense, not of 
a unity of spirit, which all Christians already 
believe in and recognize, but of real organic 
union. This is other than confederation, which 
at best is only a half-way measure and cannot be 
the ultimate expression. If Christ established a 
kingdom or organized a church, it surely 
consisted in something more than mere spirit. 
" Ye are the body of Christ " indicates an organ- 
ism, which of course must have the Christ-spirit. 
Why should believers be so afraid of showing 
forth in real strength, solidity and unity of organ- 
ization the one body of Christ, with different 
members indeed, but one body, and being one 
body certainly other than one spirit? We rejoice 
that a Presbyterian takes his stand along with the 
Episcopal communion in emphasizing anew the 
old Presbyterian doctrine, which is also the 
doctrine of the ancient Church, that there is a 
church visible and a church catholic. 

Dr. Shields also appreciates, as very few non- 
Episcopalians seem capable of appreciating, the 
generosity of the offer of the Lambeth Confer- 



Rev. Gilbert Reid. 57 

ence. Because the historic Episcopate is made one 
of the points of the basis, this does not mean 
that the Episcopal Church of America or the 
Church of England, with all their canons, rites, 
ritual and personal preferences, is made the basis. 
It is a fair offer of church union, not of swallow- 
ing up or being swallowed. Neither is anything 
said against the Presbyterian or Independent 
principles. If those principles conflict, they do 
so with the principle of organic union rather than 
the Episcopal principle. Being a clear offer of 
union, all these principles are to be recognized. 
If the Presbyterian insists on leaving out the 
Episcopal principle, he is the one who is trying 
to do some swallowing. Hence we say "Hear! 
hear! " to the words of Dr. Shields on this point. 

Dr. Shields likewise keeps in view the desira- 
bility of ultimate union with the other branches of 
the Christian church as found in the Roman and 
Greek branches. They may finally unite, if the Epis- 
copal principle is maintained, but not otherwise. 
Let us in our efforts for church union seek the union 
of all believers and all branches of the Church. 

Not till we come to the question with a fair 
amount of generosity, and in all sincerity 
promptly recognize the longings of others, what- 
ever the denomination, for the complete fulfill- 
ment of Christ's prayer that we all may be one, 
can we expect these propositions of the highest 
representatives of the Episcopal faith will be 
taken just as they were intended — as an honest and 
generous offer for reaching the glorious end. 
Let us try each one to see eye to eye on this vital 
matter, and so hasten the subjugation of the 
world to the Kingdom of Christ. 

Rev. Gilbert Reid, 

American Presbyterian Mission, China. 



fegman (^Mott, ®.®. (Congvcgafionaf), (f rooS: 
fen, (It. ^. 

You ask me for my views respecting Church 
unity. They must be very briefly, and therefore 
somewhat dogmatically put. 

Church unity can never be based upon one form 
of government, as an Episcopate, a Presbyteriate, 
or Independency. Forms of government are neces- 
sarily temporary and evanescent. The unity of 
the Church of Christ must be eternal and include 
the Church above, as well as the Church on earth. 
It cannot be based upon a creed that is to make 
the Church a school, and its unity depend upon 
agreement in certain intellectual propositions to 
be taught. But the Church is more than a school, 
and the truth cannot be comprised in any intellect- 
ual propositions however venerable. 

The unity of the Church of Christ must be a 
unity of spirit; it must be a unity in Jesus Christ, 
that is, a unity of loyalty to Him as a supreme 
Lord and Master; and this is not to be confounded 
with loyalty to certain opinions concerning Him 
which have been held by the Church and are 
formulated in its creeds; nor with loyalty to a 
hierarchy which stands in His place and is His 
representative. The unity of the Church of Christ 
must be based upon faith that Jesus Christ is now 
upon the earth as truly as He ever was, and that 
His Church is composed of those who are person- 
ally loyal to Him as a risen, living and present 
leader. 

This unity, therefore, must be a growth ; it 



Lyman Abbott, D.D. 59 

cannot be manufactured. And the order of its 
growth is indicated by Saint Paul in the verse, 
"One Lord, one faith, one baptism." 

There must first be one Lord. If some in the 
Church are worshiping a God of wrath, and others 
a God of justice, and others a God of mercy, and 
still others a God who is love, there can be no unity. 
They must all come to see that there is no wrath 
or justice or mercy which is not an inflection of 
love. They must worship the same Lord, not 
merely call Him by the same name. 

Out of this worship there must grow one faith. 
And faith in the New Testament never means a 
dogma or creed, but always a spiritual experience. 
There must be a communion of spiritual experience 
before there can be a unity in Church organization. 
Hymn books and devotional books unite us ; creeds 
and theologies divide us; because faith is unifying, 
while the intellect is analytic and so divisive. 

When we have all come to worship one Lord, 
and have come to sing together and pray together 
in one common experience of faith and hope and 
love, then, and not till then, can we hope for one 
baptism, that is, one outward and visible symbol 
of the inward and spiritual unity. 

I do not, therefore, hope much from debates 
about Church union and conventions to promote 
it; but I hope very much from such movements as 
the Young Men's Christian Association, the King's 
Daughters, the Societies of Christian Endeavor, 
and from frequent meeting together in Christian 
and philanthropic gatherings. Out of these will 
grow gradually that unity of faith which is the 
indispensable pre-requisite to Church co-operation, 
and out of Church co-operation Church federation, 
and out of Church federation Church unity. 

Yours sincerely, Lyman Abbott. 



(Beotge ©ana (jBoarbman, ® ®. i^apiiBi)^ 

The editor of The Review of the Churches 
has honored me with the request to answer the 
following questions: "(i) Is the Reunion of 
Christendom desirable? (2) Is it feasible? (3) 
How may it best be promoted? " I will try to 
answer these questions in the briefest way 
possible. 

I. "Is the Unification of Christendom desir- 
able? " 

It will be observed that I have ventured to substi- 
tute the word " unification" for the word ' ' reunion. " 
For I am not aware that Christendom has ever 
been united in such a way as to make a reunion 
desirable. The sad fact seems to be that the 
Church of the primitive period, instead of having 
been, as we so often fondly imagine, a concord of 
brothers, was largely a discord of wranglers ; so 
that St. Paul felt himself constrained to rectify 
the doctrinal heresies of Rome; to pacify the 
warring sectarians of Corinth ; to reclaim the 
theological apostates of Galatia; to guard against 
a Gentile life in Ephesus; to exhort Euodia and 
Syntyche to be of the same in the Lord in Phil- 
ippi; to warn against the dangerous tendencies in 
Colosse; to rebuke the disorderly walkers in 
Thessalonica; to caution Timothy and Titus 
against the heresiarchs who were already subvert- 
ing the churches, etc. If the " Christendom " 
of Christ's day was already a union, why did Christ 
pray that His followers might become one, 



George Dana Boardman, D. D. 6i 

** perfected into unity? " The truth is, the primi- 
tive Church, like every other thing of life, began 
in infantile imperfection, but subject to the blessed 
law of growth and perfectation. Ideals, always 
excepting the one perfect Man, are ever before us, 
never behind us. "That is not first v/hich is 
spiritual, but that which is natural; then that 
which is spiritual." The question, then, is not 
— "Is the reunion of Christendom desirable?" 

But the question is — ''Is the unification of 
Christendom desirable? " To this I answer, 
unhesitatingly. Yes. And this for many reasons. 
For example : (i) It is desirable ^sthetically. It 
does not seem decorous for a church of love to be 
a church of war. (2) It is desirable practically. 
Nothing so impedes progress as self-contradic- 
tion. A house divided against itself cannot 
stand. (3) It is desirable morally. If there is 
anything characteristically Christian, it is Christ's 
doctrine of love. If there is anything character- 
istically antichristian, it is Antichrist's doctrine 
of hate. The spirit of sectarianism is the spirit of 
Diabolus in saintly guise. 

II. "Is the Unification of Christendom fea- 
sible ? " 

To this I answer as unhesitatingly, Yes. Our 
Lord is no tyrant. Whatever He commands is 
not only imperative — it is also practicable. Do 
you think that when He prayed to His Father that 
His people might be unified. He prayed in vain ? 

III. " How may the Unification of Christendom 
be best promoted ? " 

I answer, by subordinating incidentals of form 
(such as formulas, polities, etc.), to essentials of 
life (such as faith, love, etc). "Is not the life 
more than the food, and the body than the 



62 The Historic Episcopate. 

raiment ? " Nearly nineteen centuries have 
rolled away since our Lord taught this. Yet 
we, not less than His contemporaries, still need 
His reference to ancient Hosea: "Go ye. and 
learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not 
sacrifice." Ritual is good (especially "baptism 
by immersion"), but charity is better. What 
though the great majority of modern Christians 
have not, as I venture to think, been baptized 
with the immersion of Jesus ? Let me pray for 
them, as the good Hezekiah prayed for the many 
of Asher and Ephraim and Manasseh and Issachar 
and Zebulun, who had eaten the passover other- 
wise than it is written, saying with him, *' The 
good Jehovah pardon every one that setteth his 
heart to seek the God of his fathers, Jehovah, 
though he be not cleansed according to the puri- 
fication of the sanctury! " When I come to stand 
before the judgment-seat of Christ, He will not 
ask me, " Were you baptized ? " But He will ask 
me, " Did you try to love the Lord your God with 
all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself ? " 

Not but that denominationalism does have its 
place. But that place is no longer in the foreground ; 
that place is henceforth in the background. For the 
Kingdom of God is larger than any church or all the 
churches of man. Not but that individualism still 
has its function. But that function is not to 
maintain itself in isolation and independency; 
that function is to maintain itself as a constituent 
and co-operating part of a larger corporate whole. 
For individualism is essential to wholeism. But 
the whole is larger than any of its parts. Unity 
is greater than units. Instead, then, of Christen- 
dom continuing to disintegrate itse'f into churches, 
Christendom ought to begin to integrate itself 



George Dana Boardman, D.D. 6^ 

into the Church. Sectarianism, as its very etymol- 
ogy confesses, is sectional, that is, fragmental. 
Denominationalism, by and in the very fact of 
priding itself on being a denomination, proclaims 
itself to be but a segment, not the circle or sphere. 
Denominations — at least some of them — do have 
a divine mission. But no denomination, however 
large or rich or wise, will be true to its divine 
mission until it regards itself as but a co-opera- 
tive member of the one body of Christ, and trib- 
utary to that body as one corporate whole. To 
illustrate : The efficiency or practical worth of my 
thumb does not consist in the fact of its being a 
thumb, but it consists in the fact of its being an 
organic part of my hand, even as my hand is an 
organic part of my arm, and my arm an organic 
part of my body. Let my thumb undertake to 
work independently of my body, and it becomes 
as useless as though it had been amputated. Now 
denominationalism says: "Behold, I am the 
thumb; see how shapely I am, how clean I keep 
myself, how neatly I pare my nail ! Fingers, leave 
my hand; Hand, leave my arm; Arm, leave my 
body; come over all of you, and join yourselves 
to myself! " Whereas the only true worth and 
glory any noblest denomination has consists, not 
in its being a separate denomination, but in its 
being a denominational member of the one body 
of Christ, and functionally serviceable to the 
whole organism. 

The best way, then, of promoting the Unification 
of Christendom is for all the denominations to say 
to each other (and act on the principle): "You 
and we are the one body of Christ, and therefore 
members one of another; let us then grow up 
together in all things into Him who is our head — 
even Christ." George Dana Boardman. 



SoBtp^ 3. ^^nnotf, ®.®. ((Roman Cat^fic), 
^efon faff Coffege. 

Having but a very brief period in which to 
prepare this notice, I cannot do more than set 
down hurriedly some of the thoughts that entered 
my mind as I read Dr. Shields' essay on the 
Historic Episcopate. What feelings of pity are 
awakened by such a work in a Catholic heart! It 
seems to be the despairing cry of heart-broken 
Protestantism for what it lost by its separation 
from the center of truth and unity. Protest- 
antism, viewing its hopeless divisions and dissen- 
sions, and sitting like the Prophet amid the ruins of 
its temple, makes its lament, and proposes, with 
much faltering and hesitation, plans — vague and 
misty — for reorganization and reunion. It turns 
its gaze back to the fair city from which it went 
out, and sees there the desired elements of union 
and strength, and fain would adopt some of them 
in the hope of preserving and renewing itself. 

To me — for I speak only in my own name — it 
is an honest source of pleasure to see among the 
Protestant denominations an effort of any kind at 
union. The disorganization and disintegration 
of Protestantism cannot be viewed without serious 
misgivings. In the spectacle there is naturally a 
certain gratification for the Catholic ; for this 
decay is to him proof sufficient of the inherent 
mistake of the Reform.ation in rejecting the bond 
of union in the central teaching and governing 
authority of the Church. Yet his leading senti- 
ment is that of fear ; those who desert the old 



Joseph J. Synnott, D.D. 65 

standards of Protestantism in this country do not 
as a rule knock at the door of the Catholic Church ; 
they drift naturally into indifference and agnos- 
ticism. Is this not a direct tendency to religious 
anarchy ? As in the political world social anarchy 
will be the foe of the future, so in the religious 
world religious anarchy will be the dread antagonist 
that will make the last, long, desperate struggle 
against the Church of Christ. 

Will the four articles of the Chicago-Lambeth 
Conferences be able to unite Protestsntism in 
organic unity ? The restoration of the Episcopate 
is looked upon as the most important step towards 
corporate union. Two questions present them- 
selves to the mind at the outset : ist. Will all 
Protestant denominations accept bishops as their 
rulers ? 2d. Will the Episcopate, if restored 
according to the new proposals, result in any real, 
organic unity ? The first question I am not called 
upon to answer. With regard to the second, I must 
say that I do not understand how the restoration 
of bishops will make of Protestantism a united, 
organic institution. If the advocates of the Historic 
Episcopate should succeed in having bishops 
appointed in all the Protestant denominations, this 
will not constitute organic unity. It will constitute 
at most an external resemblance, an outward form 
which will be common to all Protestant denomina- 
tions. There may be similarity of organization ; 
but similarity of organization does not constitute 
organic unity. Tie all the trees, plants, shrubs 
and flowers of your garden to stakes of the same 
size and kind, will you thereby make them one 
plant, one tree, one growth ? Some of them will 
look very uncomfortable and unnatural in their 
stiff bonds ; but they have not by this process 
become branches of the one vine. 



66 The Historic Episcopate. 

Neither will the acceptance of the other articles 
of the Lambeth-Chicago proposals add the lacking 
elements. By these articles three other points of 
similarity are added to the common form of 
government by bishops ; but you are still far 
from having brought about church unity. Let 
me use another illustration. Let us suppose that 
yoQ could persuade all the nations of the earth to 
accept several fundamental principles of civil 
polity as the basis of their constitutions ; would 
you have make them thereby one united nation ? 
And if you were able to persuade all to adopt a like 
form of government — even that which we all 
cherish as the latest and best — would you have 
abolished all national distinctions and have 
attained at last the " federation of man ? " No ; 
you would still have as many nations as before. 
You would, indeed, have similar nations; you 
would have nations united in certain leading 
principles of government; but you would not have 
one nation as the result. 

The Historic Episcopate and the three other 
articles will give at most similarity in four points. 
But I fear that the plan vv^ould not long maintain 
even this similarity. The four articles might be 
held everywhere, but everywhere they could be 
held differently. One bishop might interpret 
them in one sense, another in another sense; 
some would hold them in a Catholic, but not 
Roman sense; others in a Presbyterian, but not 
Methodist sense. A glance at the first of the 
four articles, which makes the Holy Scriptures of 
the Old and the New Testament the rule and ulti- 
m.ate standard of faith, will serve to illustrate my 
meaning. Under the wide folds of this article all 
differences might rest in peace. The same 



Joseph J. Synnott, D.D. 67 

bishops would be asked to govern in perfect 
friendliness and harmony those who denied the 
inspiration of the Scriptures and those who hold 
that even the punctuation marks are inspired. 
For, be it well noted, under the Historic Episco- 
pate as restored to Christendom, all insignificant 
questions on the inspiration of the Scriptures, on 
the nature of inspiration, on the number of the 
inspired books, would be pushed gently aside and 
would not be permitted to disturb the tranquility 
of the brethren. The modern Bible critic who 
denies the authenticity of the Book of Isaias, and 
holds that Genesis is but a patchwork of myths 
and fables, and that the Gospels were not written 
until the second or the third century, will be 
invited to shake hands with the dingy student of 
the old school who firmly believes that the editors 
of the revised version were inspired by the Evil 
One. The lion and the lamb, indeed, will lie down 
together under the shadow of the Historic Episco- 
pate. 

Regarding the other articles endless disagree- 
ments must arise. Can the "two sacraments" 
be considered indifferently under the new Historic 
Episcopate, either as mere signs and symbols, or 
as necessary channels of grace and sanctification? 
Would the doctrine of transubstantiation be as 
acceptable to the Historic Episcopate as the 
doctrine of impanation? Will all the theories of 
the Atonement, of grace and justification find a 
quiet camping ground within the new lines? What 
unity would there be here? Will that be one 
religion, one church, which looks with impartial 
gaze on those v/ho hold the most essential differ- 
ences in faith? The Church is the collection of 
those who believe; there can be no unity of 



6S The Historic Episcopate. 

church where there is no unity of faith. Holding 
the four articles, and holding them everywhere 
differently, will never make church unity. 

There will hardly be, under the Historic Epis- 
copate, when we take a practical view of the case, 
a sufficient external liturgical agreement to make 
the denominations that accept it really one in the 
eyes of the world. The devout adherents of the 
new order will see in one of their new churches a 
vested ritualist, and in another the progressive 
and thoroughly American presbyter who conducts 
services in a frock coat and nicely creased trous- 
ers. A religion with unity of that kind will hardly 
appeal to the common mind; and after all it must 
stand the test of the common mind. It must not 
be satisfied with a transcendental and invisible 
unity. It must be for mankind, and mankind at 
large must see its unity. 

The new movement dem_ands, and rightly, 
social, organic unity. In a social organization, 
to make it one, there must be a central, universal 
authority. Until the colonies established the 
central governm.ent at Washington, they were not 
one country. Without the central, supreme power 
of government, there can be no real unity. 
Where is this power in the Historic Episcopate? 

The Catholic idea of unity is unity with a unit- 
ing principle. It is unity of doctrine and teach- 
ing; unity in government; unity in a central 
authority, directing, controlling, guiding and 
leading all its subjects by concerted action to 
the attainment of one end. This is organic unity, 
the unity of the branches and the vine. This is 
social unity. This is church unity. This is his- 
toric unity. Christ did not leave the world until 
the end of the nineteenth century in ignorance of 



Joseph J. Synnott, D.D. 69 

the fact that unity is essential. No; He made 
his Church one from the beginning; and as He 
instituted His Church, so He preserved her. 
There is, and was, and ever will be, but one fold 
and one Shepherd. 

The present movement, defective as it is in 
its fundamental conception, may, we hope, be 
turned to good. It recognizes the need of union; 
it admits the absolute necessity of organization 
in church matters; nay, it concedes the institu- 
tion of the Church as a visible, social, organic 
body; it looks upon the Episcopate as the only 
means of achieving unity. It is on the right 
road: Let it go a step further, and it will see in 
the Church of Rome not only the Historic Epis- 
copate, but also the Historic Primacy, the formal 
element and bond of union and strength. Let 
it turn from its efforts to breathe the breath of life 
into the dead body of Protestantism, and examine 
that vast and beauteous organization where har- 
mony is law and union is assured, the One, Holy, 
Catholic and Apostolic Church, whose head still 
reigns in Rome, the center of Unity, in blessed 
Peter's stead. 

I was asked to give my ''frankest thought in 
the most outspoken manner." I sincerely hope 
that in accepting this invitation I have done 
naught to hinder the "reunion of Christendom" 
under the banner of Christ, which is the banner of 
truth, ever one and indefectible. 

Joseph. J. Synnott. 



RESPONSE TO THE MANY 
VOICES. 



The many voices which have been evoked on 
behalf of church unity are pleasant to hear. At 
times their latent discords seem to blend in a 
higher harmony. All the contributors to the 
symposium are agreed in lamenting our unhappy 
divisions, in recognizing unity as normal in the 
body of Christ, and in looking and longing for its 
fulfillment. It is only when the question of 
method is raised that the disagreemient begins. 

I would need more space than could reason- 
ably be allowed to this response, if I should 
fitly acknowledge the many kind things which 
have been said of my essay on "The Historic 
Episcopate," especially the too kind words of the 
editor of this Review, in more than one instance. 
I must be content with a general acknowledg- 
ment once for all, and proceed, if I may without 
presumption, to estimate the valuable opinions 
brought together, in their bearing upon the prob- 
lem of Church Unity. This wnll be no easy task, 
since the variety of these opinions is confusing 
and the aim of their authors is not always 
apparent. They will naturally group themselves 
for our purpose, according to the three church 
polities which they severally represent, as Con- 
gregational, Presbyterial, and Episcopal. 

CONGREGATIONAL OPINIONS. 

At the head of the Congregational group is the 
admirable introduction of Dr. Bradford. The 



Charles W. Shields, D.D. 71 

way to the question is here opened by emphasiz- 
ing the need for church unity as seen in the 
unchristian rivalries of the denominations, in the 
piteous appeals for missionary and humanitarian 
effort, and in the comparatively trivial differences 
which separate our churches. When looking for 
the remedy, Dr. Bradford has the sagacity, 
candor and charity to see that the Lambeth propo- 
sals are not to be put aside as measures of mere 
church aggrandizement or denominational propa- 
gandism, but may be considered, especially the 
fourth article,as affording a practical if not accept- 
able basis of unification. His objection that they 
might produce a mere formal unity without the 
fullness of spiritual concord, though true in itself, 
is an objection which must ever inhere in all our 
schemes of church unity and is not peculiar to the 
scheme now under consideration. Such concord 
did not exist even in the golden age of the undi- 
vided Apostolic Church. 

The new verbal distinction, which Dr. Brad- 
ford sanctions, between the Kingdom and the 
Church of Christ, if it means more than the old 
distinction between the invisible and visible 
Church, does not seem to me quite scriptural and 
may prove misleading when pushed to its issues. 
Instead of forcing a breach between the teach- 
ings of our Saviour and those of his Apostles on 
this subject I would rather combine them as 
consistent, complemental and inseparable. The 
divine ideal of the Church is depicted in more sa- 
cred terms than the Kingdom. In fact, the King- 
dom of Christ would have been a mere abstrac- 
tion without His Church, and His Church was 
simply His -organized Kingdom; organized in part 
by Himself and then more fully by the Apostles 



72 The Historic Episcopate." 

under His teaching and guidance. That first 
organization, whether it be viewed as authorita- 
tive or simply as exemplary, has confessedly 
become more or less imperfect, corrupt and per- 
verted. It involved Congregational, Presbyterial, 
and Episcopal elements v/hich now exist as dis- 
membered and conflicting denominations; and 
the practical question before us is whether they 
may not be organically re-combined by means of 
the Historic Episcopate. 

Dr. Beach, with his fervent enthusiasm and 
spiritual insight, discerns these three elemental 
politics as germs of unity, existing potentially in 
our Protestant Christianity; emphasizes the 
futility of mere sentimental schemes of unity, 
and voices prophetically the deep-seated yearn- 
ing of the age amid all its discords for catho- 
licity as well as truth and freedom. It is encour- 
aging to hear so stirring a call to unity out of the 
heart of New England culture. 

While I might not fully agree with Mr. Cooley 
in looking forward to a united church as in 
prophetic vision or in looking backward to it 
Ynth a mere antiquarian interest, yet I can cor- 
dially concur in his thoughtful and practical view, 
that of the three factors of organized Christianity, 
Episcopacy rather than Presbytery or Congrega- 
tionalism is the chief need of the Church of 
to-day. But the lesson of history, as I read it, is 
against the obliteration or inversion of any one of 
these ecclesiastical elements, and a true Puritan- 
ism may consist with all of them when they are 
freed from mere false ecclesiasticism. 

Dr. Stimson puts himself genially in sympathy 
with the growing spirit of church unity. Perhaps 
he overlooks the fact that the three '' prophets of 



Charles W. Shields, D.D. 73 

the movement " may not be so much opposed as 
complemental to one another in the methods 
of unification which they respectively advocated — 
the *' confederation " of Prof. Briggs and the 
'' consolidation " of Dr. Huntington being simply 
different stages in the same social process of organic 
reunion and growth. His admission that the 
Lambeth articles are clarifying the views of some 
exclusive bodies of Christians is as just as it is 
frank; but it is to be hoped that he will not be 
content to remain as a mere sympathetic specta- 
tor of the discussions going on in such bodies, but 
find in Congregational bodies also the need and 
motive for church unity. 

In the present movement the laity are in 
advance of the clergy, partly because they do not 
share the clerical sensitiveness as to the vexed 
question of orders and also because they are in 
more practical contact with the evils of sectarian- 
ism. For this reason the brief letter of Mr. 
Seward is most significant and hopeful as coming 
from an acknowledged leader of the Christian 
people who already foresees in church unity the 
fulfillment of his own zealous labors for the 
brotherhood of Christian unity. 

Amid these cheering voices President Gates 
raises the startling query, Is church unity a good 
thing in itself ? A good thing ! Is it a good thing 
that the body of Christ should appear dismem- 
bered ? Is it a good thing that the household of 
faith should be divided against itself ? Is it a 
good thing that the invisible community of 
saints should make itself visible only in sects 
and schisms, with rivalries and conflicts ? 
Would the healing of such schisms and the 
removal of such conflicts be a mere ' ' trivial step, " 



74 The Historic Episcopate. 

an " unimportant matter," a " thing for ecclesi- 
astics to play with ? " Is there '' no divine neces- 
sity " of manifesting to the world that oneness 
of believers in Christ which He likened to this 
oneness with the Father, and for which He prayed 
as affording demonstrative proof of His whole 
earthly mission ? Church unity is set before us in 
the Scriptures not merely as a good end in itself, 
but as one of the highest ends ^of Christian hope 
and effort. Instead of being an incident or 
expedient it would be an expressed attribute of 
the Church itself, which is essential to its own 
normal perfection, and without which it must 
remain as a family broken by feuds or a body 
distracted with deliriums. If the Church had no 
mission, such unity would be a good thing; and 
when its mission is fulfilled, it will be the most 
beautiful and glorious thing in the spiritual 
universe, even the realized ideal of Pentecost, the 
marriage supper of the Lamb and the nuptials of 
the new earth and heaven. 

When President Gates speaks of the main argu- 
ment of the essay his words of praise are so cordial 
and generous that I regret the more any difference 
of view, and hope it may, after all, be more verbal 
than real. As to the practical value of church 
unity, he will find that it has been referred to, 
wherever the connection required it, as a remedy 
for the imxmense waste, loss and conflict in our 
denominational charities and missions, for the 
evils of sectarianism and infidelity and for the 
social anarchy of our times. In other writings, 
also, I have more fully shown that without organic 
unity the Church can never accomplish its mission 
as the teacher, conservator and regenerator of 
human society. 



Chakles W. Shields, D.D. 75 

It is quite probable that some sincere Christians 
are not merely inappreciative of church unity, 
but do not really want it upon any terms. They 
seem to be still under the influence of anti-church 
prejudices, inherited from ancestral conflicts with 
a false ecclesiasticism in the Old World. Anything 
like a union of denominations in one church system 
would, in their view, breed such ecclesiasticism in 
some of its lowest forms. Apparently, there is 
nothing they dread so much as ecclesiastical 
politics. It is pleasant to find that Dr. Ward, if 
taken seriously, does not share such scruples. He 
proposes to dismiss "ideals" and seize the 
question as an ecclesiastical politician. He tells us 
that *'it is not a moral or religious question partic- 
ularly," but "one of practical ecclesiastical poli- 
tics;" not even an "academical question," but a 
problem of "ecclesiastical statesmanship." And 
he has given an example. On behalf of some future 
Congregational Council he has formulated a new 
Quadrilateral, in lieu of the four articles known as 
the Scriptures, the Creeds, the Sacraments and the 
Historic Episcopate. He has not, indeed, devised 
any new sacred canon, any new catholic creed, any 
new divine sacrament, any new historic ministry. 
He has only framed four new abstract propositions 
to take the place of canon, creed, ritual and pol- 
ity, as bonds of church unity, and thus supersede 
the effete wisdom of the Christian ages, as well as 
the idealistic dreams of surrounding Christendom, 
by one stroke of the pen of ecclesiastical diplomacy. 

I will not say of these propositions what their 
author has said of the overtures from Chicago and 
Lambeth, that "they are hardly worth discuss- 
ing." I will only say that there is no need to dis- 
cuss them or even to state them. They are the 



76 The Historic Episcopate. 

pleasantries of an ecclesiasticism which can view 
the question of church unity as neither a moral 
question nor a religious question, and only as an 
ecclesiastical question in a political sense. 

It is still possible, however, to view it as a 
moral and religious question. There are those 
who can view it as a Christian question, even the 
highest Christian question of our time. And to 
such idealists it is beginning to appear as a very 
practical question, — I had almost said, as a ques- 
tion of practical politics in the literal sense. Dis- 
tant as the reunion of Christendom may be in 
Greece and Rome, the Greeks and Romans them- 
selves are at our own door, especially the Romans. 
Hopeless as it might seem to marshal the Salva 
tion Army within the Quadrilateral, there are some 
Christian bodies almost inside without as yet 
perceiving it. The historic churches of the 
Reform.ation already possess the canon, the creeds, 
and the sacraments, and are in various stages of 
reaction toward the Historic Episcopate. Other 
less ecclesiastical denominations, we may hope, 
will better appreciate these existing bonds of 
church unity as they become familiar vv'ith them or 
grov/ more ecclesiastical in the best sense of the 
word. Indeed, a few Congregationalists, as well 
as Presbyterians and Episcopalians, are actually 
studying the Lambeth proposals and find them 
intrinsically worthy of consideration, as worthy of 
consideration as if they had emanated from the 
Congregational Council or from the Presbyterian 
Assembly. 

Should other denominations act upon Dr. 
Ward's suggestion, it is quite certain that the 
Baptist, Congregationalist and Methodist Churches 
could not construct any platform of church unity 



Charles W. Shields, D.D. 77 

strictly so called, which would be more catholic, 
practical and hopeful then the Quadrilateral, 
while the Lutheran, Reformed and Presbyterian 
Churches could not adopt any other without largely 
ignoring their own standards and history. 

Unless I do Dr. Strong injustice he has fallen 
into an error common to many who have yet to 
examine this question carefully. True church 
unity does not require concession or compromise, 
but only mutual toleration and fellowship; and 
the peculiar value of the Historic Episcopate is, 
that it affords scope as well as basis for such unity. 
It includes both of the two views of churchman- 
ship which Dr. Strong attributes to it; but it ex- 
cludes neither of them, and could not exclude 
either of them without destroying itself. If evan- 
gelistic Christians v/ill not tolerate and fellowship 
with ritualistic Christians in the same church sys- 
tem as they did in the undivided Church of the 
Apostles, then there may be an end of church 
unity so far as they are concerned, but the blame of 
schism will not rest upon their ritualistic fellow- 
Christians. Baptists and Congregationalists are 
not asked necessarily to concede immersion and 
autonomy, nor should they ask their Episcopal 
brethren to concede the Episcopate as now defined, 
but be ready to practice tolerance and fraternity 
with them in the household of faith. 

When we pass to the Baptist representatives in 
the Congregational group we expect to meet 
difftculties which are doctrinal and ritual in their 
nature as well as ecclesiastical. And yet the 
voices which greet us are in the tone of perfect 
unity. Dr. Boardman is of so generous and 
catholic a spirit that one wishes to 
agree with every word that he writes. And, 



78 The Historic Episcopate. 

indeed, the disagreements arise mainly from a 
mere difference in the point of view. It is not 
material whether we speak of a "reunion" or of 
a "unification" of Christendom, if only we per- 
ceive that the various communions of the one 
Apostolic Church, notwithstanding their internal 
heresies and wrangles, did not excommunicate, 
unchurch, and disfellowship one another after the 
fashion of our times, but remained in compact 
unity until the great schism between the Eastern 
and Western churches and the greater schisms at 
the Reformation. Nor can we very well apply 
our Lord's far-reaching, prophetic prayer to the 
few trivial disputes among His Apostles and Disci- 
ples. If we will only keep ever before us the 
Pentecostal ideal of church unity we may gladly 
rejoice with Dr. Boardman in his vivid picture of 
a membership of denominations, as well as indi- 
viduals, in the visible body of Christ. 

The claims of true unity are also faithfully 
expressed by Dr. Tyler in his scriptural and spir- 
itual letter. I think, however, that the Christian 
unity of our churches, though far from being 
perfect, is already sufficient for the work of 
church unity; and it will decline rather than 
increase if allowed to remain as a vague senti- 
ment without some organic expression. If it be 
true that St. Paul bases Christian unity or spiritual 
oneness upon Christ alone, yet he also gives us a 
lively picture of church unity in that structure 
which is built upon the Apostles and Prophets, 
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. 
Some of us begin to think its unfinished walls 
and arches may yet find their keystone in the 
Historic Episcopate. The '* Church of the Disci- 
ples," which Dr. Tyler represents, faithful to its 



Charles W. Shields, D.D. 79 

liberal spirit, has proposed the Primitive Faith, 
the Primitive Sacraments, and the Primitive Life 
as essentials of Christian unity; and for their 
purpose they are excellent; but for the purpose 
of church unity strictly, so called, they lack 
organic force, and ignore the ages of Christian 
experience and providential training through 
which the Church has passed since it was insti- 
tuted by Christ and His Apostles. 

On the whole, the Congregationalist utterances 
are very favorable in their bearing upon Christian 
unity as requisite to church unity. Since no 
church unity can be real and lasting which is 
not thoroughly animated with Christian unity or 
spiritual oneness, all agencies and associations 
which practically promote such spiritual oneness 
ought only to be encouraged and fostered. But 
it is scarcely conceivable that Christian churches 
should now find it their duty to wait for the 
Young Men's Christian Association, the King's 
Daughters and the societies of Christian Endeavor 
to start them upon a long career through the succes- 
sive stages of church co-operation, church feder- 
ation and church unity. The end may be more 
directly sought by massing together those churches 
of the Reformation which represent the conserva- 
tive forces of historic Christianity, in the hope of 
acting favorably upon a false ecclesiasticism on 
the one side as well as upon a crude evangelism 
on the other. 

PRESBYTERIAN OPINIONS. 

The Presbyterian voices in this symposium are 
too few to be fully representative. One of them, 
however, is clear and strong, and comes from a 
quarter of the field where the need and practica- 



8o The Historic Episcopate. 

bility of church unity are most apparent. Dr. 
Reid, of the American Presbyterian Mission in 
China, faithfully represents the old Presbyterian 
doctrine of the "Catholic Visible Church," and 
vindicates the Episcopal proposals as not only 
generous in their spirit, but adapted to Presbyte- 
rian principles and having a unifying quality 
throughout Christendom. 

On a first reading of the able and valuable argu- 
ment of Dr. Waters, of the Reformed Church, I 
thought his judgment adverse to the feasibility of 
the Lambeth articles. But, after examining it 
more carefully, it seems susceptible of a different 
construction. While he deems the Apostolic and 
Nicene creeds insufficient as a statement of the 
Reformed doctrines, he still admits them to be 
sufficient as a statement of the common Christian 
faith of a united church in which different denom- 
inations might hold supplementary doctrines not 
inconsi-stent with those catholic creeds. The 
only serious objection which he raises has 
reference to a particular view of the Historic 
Episcopate, which is not required by that 
expression itself, which many Episcopalians as 
well as Presbyterians repudiate, and which need 
not, therefore, act as a barrier to the combination 
of Presbytery and Episcopacy in a united 
church. 

In distinction from Congregationalism, the 
genius of Presbyterianism is more favorable to 
church unity than to church federation, which is at 
best but ahalf-way measure and often impracticable. 
The unification of the Presbyterian and Episco- 
pal churches would scarcely any more interfere 
with vested interests and existing institutions than 
federation, and would much more strengthen the 



Charles W. Shields, D.D. 8i 

cause of church unity than a league of smaller, 
younger denominations which offer less resistance 
to the unifying process simply because they are 
weak in historic and ecclesiastic character. More- 
over, we have been trying confederation for a 
hundred years in Bible, missionary and Sunday 
School unions, and have found it as inadequate as 
it proved to be in our political history. It is to 
be hoped that we are now entering a peaceful era 
of constitutional union and normal growth. 

EPISCOPAL OPINIONS. 

The few Episcopal contributors represent nearly 
all the forms of Episcopacy which are concerned 
in the question. 

It would have been a great advantage had Dr. 
Crook been able to write more fully as an expo- 
nent of Methodist Episcopacy. In his brief note, 
I think, he falls into the common misapprehen- 
sion of attributing to the Historic Episcopate a 
theory of the ministry and sacraments which it 
does not exclusively require, and he is, therefore, in 
danger of presenting the Methodist Episcopalian 
as really more obstructive to church unity than 
the Protestant Episcopalian. 

I shall not be able to do justice to the thought- 
ful, generous and catholic-hearted paper of Dr. 
Huntington. Any remaining differences, as he 
states them, are quite trivial. He is unquestion- 
ably right in claiming that the Protestant Episco- 
pal Church now holds the banner of unity in the 
midst of our divided American Christianity, and 
is entitled to the leadership by virtue of its 
English origin, ancestral connections and full 
ecclesiastical type. But it would need to undergo 
great constitutional changes before it could incor- 



82 The Historic Episcopate. 

porate with itself such vigorous historic bodies as 
the Lutheran, Reformed and Presbyterian 
churches, and it might by such changes depreci- 
ate its own churchly character. Nor are those 
churches likely to surrender their corporate life 
in an abrupt consolidation, without further organic 
growth of the latent ecclesiastical qualities which 
they traditionally possess and are steadily devel- 
oping. It will be wise to treat them, as professed 
Churches, not as mere individual Christians. The 
Lutheran Church will probably procure the Swed- 
ish Episcopate. The Reformed and Presbyterian 
churches may be more ripe for the American 
Episcopate than is now imagined. There is noth 
ing to repel them in consolidation, whether near 
or far off, as Dr. Huntington depicts it and would 
allure them toward it. He has s^ad Nolo episcopari 
more than once, but in the ideal United Church 
of the United States he is already Primate by 
acclamation. 

I need not say that the contribution of Dr. 
Satterlee shares the same attractive qualities. 
His appreciative and discriminating analysis of 
the argument of the essay gives to it new force 
and clearness Vv^hich its author had not perceived. 
In particular, I would emphasize, in his own 
language, his view of organic growth as a method 
of unification on the basis of the Lambeth arti- 
cles: "It is divine and not human; it is natural 
and not artificial; it is living and not mechanical; 
it centralizes itself not in any one Christian body 
but in all of them. Though men may not create 
it, they can develop it by recognizing and yield- 
ing themselves up to this force of spiritual grav- 
itation." 

No voice could be more welcome in this Chris- 



Charles W. Shields, D.D. 83 

tian circle than one from the Church which is, 
in a sense, the mother of us all. Dr. Synnott, in 
his admirable letter, has impressively set 
forth that aspect of solid unity presented 
by an episcopate claiming for its primate succes- 
sion from St, Peter as the vicar of Christ. The 
early Protestants could appreciate this appeal 
better than we do now. Melancthon would have 
been content to remain under the Papacy had the 
liberty of evangelical preaching been allowed. 
Calvin, in the most pathetic terms, resented the 
charge of Cardinal Sadolet that the Reformers 
were breaking up the unity of the Church. And 
since that great rupture passed into history a 
more Christian spirit has been growing in spite of 
the bitter controversies which it engendered. 
When Pius the Ninth, in 1868, by an encycli- 
cal letter, affectionately invited all Protestants to 
return to the Roman communion, the Presbyte- 
rian General Assembly returned a courteous 
response, maintaining that they were not out 
of the communion of the Catholic Church, 
since they accepted the doctrinal decisions 
of the first six CEcumenical Councils, especially 
those of Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon and Constan- 
tinople, and only rejected certain later innova- 
tions. At the present moment also there is 
among intelligent Protestants an increasing 
respect for the consistent conservatism of the 
ancient church amid the abounding unbelief and 
license of the times. As to the question before 
us, one main difficulty is that, while the Roman 
Catholic Church maintains a formal unity within 
its own pale, it does not exert a unifying potency 
throughout the rest of the Christian world. 
Until it has made peace with the oldest Church 



84 The Historic Episcopate. 

in Christendom, the Orthodox Greek Church, 
its claim to catholic unity will be challenged; and 
while the newspapers are filled with reports of its 
own intestine conflicts even Protestant dissensions 
do not seem so scandalous. The clever picture 
which Dr. Synnott draws of denominational 
bishops, like so many trees, plants and shrubs 
tied to stakes of the same size and kind, might be 
matched by another in which a divided episcopate 
and intelligent laity would appear attached to the 
Papacy by no less precarious ties. Thoughtful 
observers, without the least disrespect, believe 
that in this democratic country the Catholic 
Church is itself undergoing an internal reforma- 
tion, of which it is not yet fully conscious, and by 
which it is to be brought into closer agreement 
with a like reformation which Protestants have 
already achieved. Should such hidden grounds 
of reunion ever appear it might not be difficult 
for communions of European origin to recognize 
a certain ''Historic Primacy" of the Roman See 
in relation to a truly American Catholic Church. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Nov. 2005 

PreservationTechnoIogies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



!^^ 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

029 557 364 8 



